Thread: Historically, Dems Supported Slavery, GOPs Opposed

Since historically, Democrats supported slavery, it's no wonder they refuse to acknowledge that legalizing massive numbers of uneducated, low-skilled workers is a form of indentured servitude!

An interesting article...

Should the Democratic Party Apologize for Supporting Slavery?

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Illinois said: "before the Civil War, the Democratic slave masters used to hold anti-black conventions." Hence, there were no Republican slave masters at all. Why? The Republican Party was formed in the 1850's for the purpose of abolishing slavery and polygamy. The Republican National Committee website (www.rnc.com) says: "The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge."

Look at a portion of the 1860 platform: "That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that 'no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States….That we brand the recent re-opening of the African slave- trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a shame to (a) crime against humanity and a burning (for) our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic." (To their credit, there were Northern Democrats who supported President Lincoln during the Civil War.)

I'm somewhat curious about some information on the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) website (www.democrats.org/about/history.html). The late Ron Brown, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee said: "The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren…." Wait a minute! From Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor? All of the slave masters were Democrats. How many other Democratic presidents before the Civil War opposed slavery? The answer is none. The Democrats kept in bondage those who were excluded, those who were disenfranchised, and those who were poor--black slaves. Rest in peace, Ron Brown, but were you were ignorant of your own party's history or did you lie through your teeth?

According to the PBS's American Experience website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/p ... _tree.html) it says of the Democratic Party platform in 1840: "They opposed the government's interference with the spread of slavery." It also said in 1852: "Democrats also supported the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 and united along pro-slavery lines." It also said in 1856: "Democrats again united along a pro-slavery platform, endorsing states' rights, the Fugitive Slave Law, and popular sovereignty in the territories.


Read the entire article at:

http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/2400/1/
Should-the-Democratic-Party-Apologize-for-Supporting-Slavery/Page1.html

With all Due Respect, isn't the underlying problem the cultural and religious situation in Latin American countries? At least in large measure? I just posted an article about a contractor in Tennesee who had illegally emigrated from Mexico. He was one of nine children and his father was alcoholic. I think this provides a better clue as to how our present problem came to be than that Democrats want slave labor. Not that I don't agree that Dems carry A GREAT PORTION of the responsibility for what is happening. I'm just trying to put my finger on the underlying issues.

Please see: Hard Work, Unlawful Practices...

BTW, are you a state or US Rep.? We need to get the SAVE Act passed, pronto.

Bruce Bartlett (domestic policy advisor to President Reagan) just published a book ("Wrong on Race") on the Democratic Party's historical support of slavery, how after the Civil War they dominated the states of the Confederacy etc.

Originally Posted by Captainron

With all Due Respect, isn't the underlying problem the cultural and religious situation in Latin American countries? At least in large measure? I just posted an article about a contractor in Tennesee who had illegally emigrated from Mexico. He was one of nine children and his father was alcoholic. I think this provides a better clue as to how our present problem came to be than that Democrats want slave labor. Not that I don't agree that Dems carry A GREAT PORTION of the responsibility for what is happening. I'm just trying to put my finger on the underlying issues.

Please see: Hard Work, Unlawful Practices...

BTW, are you a state or US Rep.? We need to get the SAVE Act passed, pronto.

You are right about unfavorable or even dangerous cultural and religious conditions within the immigrant's country of origin providing the incentive and motivation to migrate, although, ultimately, it is that country's responsibility to provide for its owns citizens. But what if there was no other country for the people to migrate to? What if the U.S. closed its "open door" and began to enforce its current immigration laws?

In the case of the U.S. and Mexico, there is a deliberate effort by global elitists to legally establish a massive underclass of economically indentured servitude for the purpose of global competitiveness, particularly against China. When you consider President Calderon's statement at Harvard last month:

"They're two economies, one intensive in capital, that is to say, the American economy, while the other is intensive in labor, that is to say, the Mexican economy."

it is clear that the government of Mexico is in bed with the U.S. by encouraging its citizens to migrate to the U.S. to work, receive health care and education, on the backs of American taxpayers rather than taking the responsibility to repair Mexico's society and develop its own infrastructure to sustain its citizens.

Should the Democratic Party Apologize for Supporting Slavery?

Yeah maybe they should be the ones, if any, who pay Reparations. Sweet!

My apologies if I make comments that seems sarcastic or cynical and are hard for you to interpret. I am affiliated with neither the Republican or Democrat Party, so my rhetoric won't fit into either of those categories.

And if I remember correctly Gores father voted against the civil rights bill.

Yes, I have known this for quite some time. Anyone with a basic grasp of US history should know that the Republican Party was established by abolitionists, and that the "Solid South" was a Democratic stronghold for many years. The legacy of slavery has something to do with that.

However, Republicans should not open that can of worms to far, because they have picked up those very Dixie voters that used to fill the ranks of the Democratic Party. The Republicans made significant gains in the South by utilizing social issues and foreign policy concerns over the past 3 decades. It really started to shift when the Dems essentially abandoned their base (conservative, religious, rural, white, southerners) and embraced leftism and multiculturalism in the early 1970s. The Reps targeted them, and have been seen as the "socially conservative" party ever since.

But this past history has little bearing on today, and the Repuplican Party never really cared for the Dixiecrats that they picked up in the South. They just used them for votes, while they did Corporate America's bidding. Both parties are slave-traders. They are both corporatists, and they are both multiculturalists. Just varying to a degree on each issue.

Oh the republicans in the north didn't keep slaves? why did US Grants wife and Mary Todd Lincoln keep slaves until the 13th 14 and 15th amendments were ratified? Why were there slaves in the White House until (and during) the War of Northern Aggression? I'm so sick of lies concerning slavery, and the true reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. Do the research.

Our Links Page
We may be reached at
beaner1219@yahoo.com

Membership info

website: chevelle@flatfenders.com
THE 10 CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES

by James W. King, Commander Camp 141 and Lt. Col. Thomas M. Nelson
Sons of Confederate Veterans
PO Box 70577
Albany, Georgia 31708
229-436-0397

Historians have long debated the causes of the war and the Southern perspective differs greatly from the Northern perspective. Based upon the study of original documents of the War Between The States (Civil War) era and facts and information published by Confederate Veterans, Confederate Chaplains, Southern writers and Southern Historians before, during, and after the war, I present the facts, opinions, and conclusions stated in the following article.

Technically the 10 causes listed are reasons for Southern secession. The only cause of the war was that the South was invaded and responded to Northern aggression.

I respectfully disagree with those who claim that the War Between the States was fought over slavery or that the abolition of slavery in the Revolutionary Era or early Federal period would have prevented war. It is my opinion that war was inevitable between the North and South due to complex political and cultural differences. The famous Englishman Winston Churchill stated that the war between the North and South was one of the most unpreventable wars in history. The Cause that the Confederate States of America fought for (1861-1865) was Southern Independence from the United States of America. Many parallels exist between the War for American Independence (1775-1783) and the War for Southern Independence.

There were 10 political causes of the war (causes of Southern Secession), one of which was slavery, which was a scapegoat for all the differences that existed between the North and South. The Northern industrialists had wanted a war since about 1830 to get the South's resources ( land-cotton-coal-timber-minerals ) for pennies on the dollar. All wars are economic and are always between centralists and decentralists. The North would have found an excuse to invade the South even if slavery had never existed.

A war almost occurred during 1828-1832 over the tariff when South Carolina passed nullification laws. The U.S. congress had increased the tariff rate on imported products to 40% ( known as the tariff of abominations in Southern States ). This crisis had nothing to do with slavery. If slavery had never existed --period--or had been eliminated at the time the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 or anytime prior to 1860 it is my opinion that there would still have been a war sooner or later.

On a human level there were 4 causes of the war--New England Greed--New England Fanatics--New England Zealots--and New England Hypocrites. During the "So Called Reconstruction" ( 1865-1877 ) the New England Industrialists got what they had really wanted for 40 years--THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR. It was a political coalition between the New England economic interests and the New England fanatics and zealots that caused Southern secession to be necessary for economic survival and safety of the population.

1. TARIFF--Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%-20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to themselves. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South.
Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 era ( between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

2. CENTRALIZATION VERSUS STATES RIGHTS---The United States of America was founded as a Constitutional Federal Republic in 1789 composed of a Limited Federal Government and Sovereign States. The North wanted to and did alter the form of Government this nation was founded upon. The Confederate States of America fought to preserve Constitutional Limited Federal Government as established by America’s founding fathers who were primarily Southern Gentlemen from Virginia. Thus Confederate soldiers were fighting for rights that had been paid for in blood by their forefathers upon the battlefields of the American Revolution. Abraham Lincoln had a blatant disregard for The Constitution of the United States of America. His 'War of Aggression Against the South' changed America from a Constitutional Federal Republic to a Democracy ( with Socialist leanings ) and broke the original Constitution.
The infamous Socialist Karl Marx sent Lincoln a letter of congratulations after his reelection in 1864. A considerable number of European Socialists came to America and fought for the Union (North).

3. CHRISTIANITY VERSUS SECULAR HUMANISM--The South believed in basic Christianity as presented in the Holy Bible. The North had many Secular Humanists (atheists, transcendentalists and non-Christians). Southerners were afraid of what kind of country America might become if the North had its way. Secular Humanism is the belief that there is no God and that man, science and government can solve all problems. This philosophy advocates human rather than religious values. Reference : Frank Conner’s book "The South Under Siege 1830-2000."

4. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES--Southerners and Northerners were of different Genetic Lineages. Southerners were primarily of Western English (original Britons), Scottish, and Irish linage (Celtic) whereas Northerners tended to be of Anglo-Saxon and Danish (Viking) extraction. The two cultures had been at war and at odds for over 1000 years before they arrived in America. Our ancient ancestors in Western England under King Arthur humbled the Saxon princes at the battle of Baden Hill ( circa 497 AD --516 AD ). The cultural differences that contributed to the War Between the States (1861-1865 ) had existed for 1500 years or more.

5. CONTROL OF WESTERN TERRITORIES-- The North wanted to control Western States and Territories such as Kansas and Nebraska. New England formed Immigrant Aid Societies and sent settlers to these areas that were politically attached to the North. They passed laws against slavery that Southerners considered punitive. These political actions told Southerners they were not welcome in the new states and territories. It was all about control--slavery was a scapegoat.

6. NORTHERN INDUSTRIALISTS WANTED THE SOUTH'S RESOURCES. The Northern Industrialists wanted a war to use as an excuse to get the South's resources for pennies on the dollar. They began a campaign about 1830 that would influence the common people of the North and create enmity that would allow them to go to war against the South. These Northern Industrialists brought up a morality claim against the South alleging the evils of slavery. The Northern Hypocrites conveniently neglected to publicize the fact that 5 New England States ( Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and New York ) were primarily responsible for the importation of most of the slaves from Africa to America. These states had both private and state owned fleets of ships.

7. SLANDER OF THE SOUTH BY NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS. This political cause ties in to the above listed efforts by New England Industrialists. Beginning about 1830 the Northern Newspapers began to slander the South. The Industrialists used this tool to indoctrinate the common people of the North. They used slavery as a scapegoat and brought the morality claim up to a feverish pitch. Southerners became tired of reading in the Northern Newspapers about what bad and evil people they were just because their neighbor down the road had a few slaves. This propaganda campaign created hostility between the ordinary citizens of the two regions and created the animosity necessary for war. The Northern Industrialists worked poor whites in the factories of the North under terrible conditions for 18 hours a day ( including children ). When the workers became old and infirm they were fired. It is a historical fact that during this era there were thousands of old people living homeless on the streets in the cities of the North. In the South a slave was cared for from birth to death. Also the diet and living conditions of Southern slaves was superior to that of most white Northern factory workers. Southerners deeply resented this New England hypocrisy and slander.

8. NEW ENGLANDERS ATTEMPTED TO INSTIGATE MASSIVE SLAVE REBELLIONS IN THE SOUTH. Abolitionists were a small but vocal and militant group in New England who demanded instant abolition of slavery in the South. These fanatics and zealots were calling for massive slave uprisings that would result in the murder of Southern men, women and children. Southerners were aware that such an uprising had occurred in Santa Domingo in the 1790 era and that the French (white) population had been massacred. The abolitionists published a terrorist manifesto and tried to smuggle 100,000 copies into the South showing slaves how to murder their masters at night. Then when John Brown raided Harpers Ferry,Virginia in 1859 the political situation became inflammatory. Prior to this event there had been more abolition societies in the South than in the North. Lincoln and most of the Republican Party ( 64 members of congress ) had adopted a political platform in support of terrorist acts against the South. Some (allegedly including Lincoln) had contributed monetarily as supporters of John Brown's terrorist activities. Again, slavery was used as a scapegoat for all differences that existed between the North and South.

9.. SLAVERY. Indirectly, slavery was a cause of the war. Most Southerners did not own slaves and would not have fought for the protection of slavery.
However, they believed that the North had no Constitutional right to free slaves held by citizens of Sovereign Southern States. Prior to the war there were five times as many abolition societies in the South as in the North.
Virtually all educated Southerners were in favor of gradual emancipation of slaves. Gradual emancipation would have allowed the economy and labor system of the South to gradually adjust to a free paid labor system without economic collapse. Furthermore, since the New England States were responsible for the development of slavery in America, Southerners saw the 'morality' claims by the North as blatant hypocrisy. The first state to legalize slavery had been Massachusetts in 1641 and this law was directed primarily at Indians. In colonial times the economic infrastructure of the port cities of the North was dependent upon the slave trade. The first slave ship in America, "THE DESIRE", was fitted out in Marblehead, Massachusetts.
Further proof that Southerners were not fighting to preserve slavery is found in the diary of an officer in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. He stated that "he had never met a man in the Army of Northern Virginia that claimed he was fighting to preserve slavery". If the war had been over slavery, the composition of the politicians, officers, enlisted men, and even African Americans would have been different.
Confederate General Robert E. Lee had freed his slaves (they had not been purchased by him, they were inherited by his wife's estate) prior to 1863 whereas Union General Grant's wife Julia did not free her slaves until after the war when forced to do so by the 13th amendment to the constitution. Grant even stated that if the abolitionists claimed he was fighting to free slaves that he would offer his services to the South.
Mildred Lewis Rutherford ( 1852-1928 ) was for many years the historian for the United Daughters Of The Confederacy (UDC). In her book Truths Of History she stated that there were more slaveholders in the Union Army ( 315,000 ) than the Confederate Army ( 200,000 ). Statistics and estimates also show that about 300,000 blacks supported the Confederacy versus about 200,000 for the Union. Clearly the war would have been fought along different lines if it had been fought over slavery.
The famous English author Charles Dickens stated " the Northern onslaught upon Southern slavery is a specious piece of humbug designed to mask their desire for the economic control of the Southern states."

10, NORTHERN AGGRESSION AGAINST SOUTHERN STATES, Proof that Abraham Lincoln wanted war may be found in the manner he handled the Fort Sumter incident. Original correspondence between Lincoln and Naval Captain G.V.Fox shows proof that Lincoln acted with deceit and willfully provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort ( The Union was using Fort Sumter as A TARIFF COLLECTION FACILITY ). It was politically important that the South be provoked into firing the first shot so that Lincoln could claim the Confederacy 'started' the war. Additional proof that Lincoln wanted war is the fact that Lincoln refused to meet with a Confederate peace delegation. They remained in Washington for 30 days and returned to Richmond only after it became apparent that Lincoln wanted war and he refused to meet and discuss a peace agreement. After setting up the Fort Sumter incident for the purpose of starting a war, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down what he called a 'rebellion'. He intended to march Union troops across Virginia and North Carolina to attack South Carolina. Virginia and North Carolina were not going to allow such an unconstitutional and criminal act of aggression against a sovereign sister Southern State. Lincoln's act of aggression caused the secession of the upper Southern States.

http://www.flatfenders.com/scv/TenCauses.htm

Originally Posted by jazzloversinc

Oh the republicans in the north didn't keep slaves? why did US Grants wife and Mary Todd Lincoln keep slaves until the 13th 14 and 15th amendments were ratified? Why were there slaves in the White House until (and during) the War of Northern Aggression? I'm so sick of lies concerning slavery, and the true reasons for the War of Northern Aggression. Do the research.

I read your follow-up post - yes, there were many reasons for the Civil War, slavery was just one of many.

I have roots going back to the pre-Grant era in the GOP - one of my forefathers was a delegate in PA that voted to let the Southern states secede from the Union if they wanted to do so.