Interesting Take on Political Parties, Slavery and Reparations..

[ponycar17]

I've long heard, since back in high school that the black community political support only turned fairly solid Democrat when FDR enacted the entitlement programs provided by the 'New Deal'. LBJ of course, reinforced the already-solid base that FDR molded with his farce of the 'Great Society'. Here's an interesting article as to why the black community support justly centered around Republicans before FDR. It's an interesting bit of facts.

This post is not meant to insight any racist tirade. Please refrain from doing so and stick to the facts.

Drenched in blood of slavery
Posted: June 21, 2009
6:37 pm Eastern

© 2009
Editor's note: Roger Hedgecock's show streams live on WND from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern and then again in the following three hours on tape.

The U.S. Senate voted unanimously last week to adopt a resolution apologizing for slavery.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, lead sponsor of the resolution, said, "You wonder why we didn't do it 100 years ago. It is important to have a collective response to a collective injustice."

Only after decades of public education ignoring and distorting U.S. history can such a huge lie be said with a straight face.

Senator, you didn't do it 100 years ago because 100 years ago you Democrats were enforcing Jim Crow segregation laws, poll taxes to keep blacks from voting, and riding around in sheets and pointy hats just in case blacks didn't get the message.

You say "It's important to have a collective response" because you want to bury the origins, purposes, and historical practices of your own party.

The worst part is, Republicans in the Senate let you get away with it.

Principled Republicans knowing their history would have authored a resolution reciting the facts that the Republican Party was formed, among other reasons, to oppose slavery and that the Republican Party and its first President Abraham Lincoln responded to Southern, Democrat-led secession with a successful war that preserved the union and freed the slaves.

After Lincoln's assassination (by a Democrat), the Republican-led Congress (over the objections of the Democratic Party minority) amended the Constitution to confirm the liberation of the slaves (13th Amendment: slavery abolished), and the 14th Amendment (freed slaves are citizens equal to all citizens) and the 15th Amendment (right to vote guaranteed to freed slaves).

Southern Democrats spent the next 100 years trying to keep freed slaves down with segregation laws, poll taxes to deny the right to vote, and lynching to enforce the social order. The KKK was formed by a Democrat; no Republican has ever been a member of the KKK. This is the heritage of the Democratic Party.

In fact, the Democratic Party was formed in the first place to defend and expand slavery.

In 1840, the very first national nominating convention of the Democratic Party adopted a platform which read in part:

Resolved, That Congress has no power ... to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states ... that all efforts by abolitionists ... made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery ... are calculated ... to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union.

Got that, Sen. Harkin? Your party was born defending slavery as necessary for the happiness of the people and threatening secession and war if slavery were challenged.

The same party platform language was used in 1844, 1848, 1852 and 1856. In 1860, the Democrat commitment to slavery took a harsher tone.

The Fugitive Slave Law was passed by Congress in 1850. This monstrous law provided that, since slaves were the personal property of their masters, runaway slaves must be returned to their owners. The law required all law enforcement officers to assist in the recapture of runaway slaves or risk a fine of $1,000 (about $100,000 in today's dollars)!

The Republican Party was formed in the 1850s in part as a political reaction to this unjust law.

In their national convention of 1860, Democrats harshly responded to certain Northern (Republican) states that were passing state laws to evade the Fugitive Slave Law by adopting a plank in the Democratic Party Platform which read:

Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
Senator, your Democratic Party has much to be apologetic about on the slavery issue.

During the civil war, the Southern Democrats led the Confederacy out of the Union; Northern Democrats formed a separate party which opposed the war. The 1864 (Northern) Democratic Party platform adopted a "peace" plank which read in part:

... after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment of war ... justice, humanity, liberty, and the public welfare demand ... a cessation of hostilities ... to the end that ... peace may be restored ...

Here is the origin of today's Democratic Party "Peace at any Price, Better Red than Dead, Why Can't we all just get Along" foreign policy.

The war was started by Democrat secessionists, and just as President Lincoln was on the verge of victory, the Northern Democrats wanted to save the South and slavery with "peace talks"! Voters knew better in 1864 and re-elected Lincoln.

But the Democrats weren't through. In 1868, Sen. Harkin's party condemned the Republican Party in its party platform as the "Radical Party," and condemned Reconstruction in these unforgettable words:

Instead of restoring the Union, it (the Radical Party) has dissolved it, and subjected ten states (the former Confederate states) ... to military despotism and negro supremacy.

And, senator, don't tell me this is all ancient history in a lame attempt to evade the true origins of your party.

As recently as 1964, when the Senate debated the Civil Rights Act, Southern Democrats (including Al Gore's father) voted no. While Northern Democrats voted yes, their votes were not enough. The deciding votes to pass this landmark bill were provided by Sen. Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., and the Republicans.

Republicans should be proud of their heritage of liberation of the slaves and civil rights voting record.

It's Harkin and the Democrats who should apologize and pay reparations.

From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...&pageId=101760

Discuss...

[kutaho]

Very interesting read, think i'll do a little research.
I don't believe in different races, only different cultural groups.

[bcj1755]

nope nope nope, this won't do at all. You are talking about real historical facts, not the psuedointellectual revisionist "history" being tought in the liberal controlled public "schools." Now, I distinctly remember in my history classes that the Democrats were the pro-slavery party at the time, so this "history" must have "come to light" recently.

[islenos]

I'd be careful about passing that around, since the republicans of today are the democrats of yesteryear and vise versa.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by islenos

I'd be careful about passing that around, since the republicans of today are the democrats of yesteryear and vise versa.

Meh, they're all douchebags.

[kutaho]

Why didn't the article start in 1820?
should have included a little history of the Federalist, Whig's and Democrats.

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by islenos

I'd be careful about passing that around, since the republicans of today are the democrats of yesteryear and vise versa.

Yes, the Democrats learned in the mid-20th century that appeasement wins votes. FDR taught that well. That doesn't mean that modern Republicans walk around adorned in Klan garb (except maybe for David Duke ). You have to measure what the Democrat appeasement programs have done for the group they're trying to appear to help. I'd argue that they've hurt their target group more than they've helped. In the process, all that is gained are votes. For that, we all hurt...

[358 winchester]

Originally Posted by bcj1755

Meh, they're all douchebags.

THEY ARE, AREN'T THEY

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by kutaho

Why didn't the article start in 1820?
should have included a little history of the Federalist, Whig's and Democrats.

I would think that would be because Republicans didn't come along until 1854 as an anti-Slavery party. The comparison with Whigs and Federalists would have little interest amid modern party policy discussion.

[RunningOnMT]

The democrats have always maintained their numbers by creating and expanding a dependency class made up of minorities to which they appeal to with appeasement and financial enrichment.

The only reversal of positions between the two parties from then until now is that democrats now support a large and powerful central government and republicans favor a smaller federal government and states rights.

There has however been no change of position of the republican party with regard to individual rights and commitment to the preservation of the constitution.

Republican opposition to entitlements and special treatment is often misconstrued as disdain for minorities, a distortion of the facts which democrats promote for their own advantage.