Racial Politics

Its come to my attention that there are a lot of stupid people, out there, with stupid ideas ranging from thinking the GOP wants to suppress women and blacks from voting, to other idiots (usually libertarians) that think there’s no difference between the parties.

The DNC and GOP are pretty extreme in their differences, and always have been, and a good way of looking at, and examining this, is to examine not only their legislative histories, but their party planks.  A lot of this will be an expansion of Bob Parks’ “The Democrat Race Lie”, from Black & Right (http://www.black-and-right.com).  Let’s look at the Wikipedia description of the DNC:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Democratic Party is one of two major contemporary political parties in the United States along with the Republican Party. The party supports a social liberal and progressive platform,[1][2][3] and its Congressional caucus is composed ofprogressives, liberalscentrists,[4] and libertarians. The party has the lengthiest record of continuous operation in the United States and is one of the oldest political parties in the world.[5] Barack Obama is the 15th Democrat to hold the office ofPresident of the United States.

As of the 112th Congress following the 2010 elections, the Democratic Party currently holds a minority of seats in the House of Representatives, a majority of seats in the Senate, a minority of state governorships, as well as a minority of state legislatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)

The founding date is listed as 1792.  In my opinion, the most graphic displays of difference started to appear, around the time the Civil War began brewing (and, by the way, the DNC is responsible for that war, and each and every American death).  For instance, during the famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates:

October 13, 1858

During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

That’s a pretty stark and plain statement, and was indicative of the widespread liberal democrat mindset of the day.  Not surprisingly, the saying “the more things change, the more they stay the same” remains in force, as the DNC is still holding on to this mindset.

RUSH: In advance of Clinton’s speech, at the Democrat convention, there have been amazingly a bunch of articles recalling Clinton’s disparaging remarks about Obama during the 2008 campaign.  Now, that book Game Change, which HBO made into a movie about Sarah Palin, Mark Halperin’s book, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. They described Clinton trying to get Ted Kennedy’s endorsement for Hillary, and they had Clinton talking to Ted Kennedy.  They quote Clinton as saying: (paraphrasing) “You know, Ted, a few years ago this guy would be getting us coffee.” 

In the New Yorker, Ryan Lizza reports that the late Tim Russert told him of a similar comment by Clinton.  According to Ryan Lizza, via Tim Russert, Clinton said to Ted Kennedy:  “You know, Ted, a few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags.” And Clinton’s impression of Obama hasn’t improved since 2008.  Last year he told a bunch of friends, and this is in Ed Klein’s book, The Amateur, Clinton told a bunch of friends:  (summary via Clinton impression) You know this guy, Obama, he doesn’t even know how to be president.  He doesn’t know how the world works.  How could he?  He’s been too busy fetching my coffee, carrying my bags. (chuckling)”

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, named after a prison, interviewed Ryan Lizza on Clinton’s remark about Obama fetching baggage and Soledad called the remark racist.  Ryan Lizza said, “I don’t think it’s racial.  I don’t think Bill Clinton has a racist bone in his body.”  See, when a Democrat describes a black guy as a step and fetch it, that’s not racism, because Democrats can’t be racist.  Clinton was just trying to talk about how relatively inexperienced Obama was.  He didn’t have any experience.  That’s all Clinton was saying when he told Ted Kennedy just a few years ago this guy would be fetching our coffee. 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/04/bill_clinton_on_obama_a_few_years_ago_this_guy_would_have_been_carrying_our_bags

Not to sound racist, myself, but I have found that its a lot easier for whites to blow off allegations like that, than blacks (or virtually anybody else) can, which I attribute to the fact that the vast majority of racism isn’t directed toward them, and, therefore, doesn’t really affect them.  As for Soledad saying Clinton didn’t make a racist remark, that plays directly into my hypothehsis, and let’s also not forget this other example, where Clinton is quick to rush to the defense of the now worm compost Robert Byrd, big wheel of the Ku Klux Klan, during his funeral:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/02/clinton_defends_byrds_kkk_ties_he_was_trying_to_get_elected.html

Leftists that don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground constantly like to wrongfully claim that the so-called “3/5 Compromise” in the Constitution states that blacks are only 3/5 Human.  Again, going back to Wikipedia:

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting “all other persons” as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Yep.  There you have it.  Congress has the power to levy taxes in specified (enumerated) ways.

Article1, Section 8:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. -United States Constitution

Article 1, Section 9:  No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. -United States Constitution

That means that Congress is breaking the law/violating the Constitution in how it’s administering taxes against the States and the People, this very minute.  In any event, the compromise was due to the fact that if the leftists (members of the DNC, back then) were allowed to count slaves among their numbers, that would mean a higher proportion of seats in Congress would be afforded to them, giving them what amounted to absolute control over the Union.  This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, where the elected officials represent the wishes and votes of their constituents, but with blacks being denied the power to vote (due to being enslaved), there would be only representation of the slave owners, and other like-minded people, disenfranchising millions of blacks (something the DNC is still accusing the GOP of wanting to do, all the while completely ignoring their own written history of perpetrating such things, themselves).

Only illiterates and idiots see anything in the United States Constitution that states that blacks are only 3/5 Human.  Illiterates, idiots, liberals and democrats (I know; repetitive).  In fact, I would swear this sounds like recent history:

Democrats Benefit From Illegal Immigrant Voting

Posted: 04/13/2012 9:16 am

Why are Democrats so uniformly opposed to proof of citizenship in order to vote? They and their interest group surrogates insist there is no problem with voter security. But why should we believe this when we know illegal immigrants routinely lie to obtain employment? (Federal law requires employees to sign a document called an I-9 Form upon becoming employed swearing under penalty of perjury that he or she is authorized for employment, i.e., is a citizen or lawfully admitted alien and to provide two forms of ID to prove it.) I have seen thousands of bogus I-9 Forms signed by illegal immigrants and copies of their false social security cards in my RICO cases against employers who hire them. These false attestations are rarely prosecuted by federal authorities. And why would we think illegal immigrants, whose very presence in this country is a crime, would be above a little more crime in order to obtain employment?

Once that is understood, why would we think illegal immigrants would not also lie to obtain medical care in public hospitals, food stamps, unemployment benefits, and register to vote? Only two states actually require proof of citizenship in order to register (Arizona and Kansas). The others merely require the applicant sign a sworn statement attesting to the fact that he or she is a citizen. But this is what is asked, and routinely perjured, on the I-9 Form. Thus, it follows that false claims of citizenship in order to register to vote should be widespread. There are some media reports of non-citizens voting, but generally, the media have not investigated the problem in any depth compared to their obsession with the insurmountable problem Republicans will have with Hispanic “voters.”

The perceived trouble Republicans face, we are constantly told, stems from the party’s opposition to illegal immigration. And perhaps there is a kernel of truth to this theory. It stands to reason that illegal immigrants who are illegally registered to vote would have a very real stake in seeing to it that Republicans do not come to power with their far right ideas about requiring proof of citizenship to vote (which has been required since the founding of the Republic) and to be employed in this country. After all, if these laws were seriously enforced, it might be intolerable for illegal immigrants to live in the U.S. They would, presumably, lose employment, subsidized medical care, and the right to vote for candidates for will perpetuate such a way of life.

Democratic party spokesmen justify their opposition to laws requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote by the absurd claim that poor people do not have birth certificates or passports. But we require everyone, including the poor, to produce such documents when becoming employed for their I-9 Forms. And if that is tolerable, then it must also be tolerable for the same documents to be produced to register to vote and some sort of photo ID in order to vote.

There is a huge problem with voter fraud. And, in my opinion, it is proven by the vehemence of the Democrats, the beneficiaries of the fraud, toward enforcement of our laws.

Follow Howard Foster on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Foster PC
I think the most amazing, breath-taking part about that is the fact that it was from the Huffington Post, but I digress.  Then, there’s the argument of the left, that the GOP is using ‘States’ rights’ arguments to perpetuate their fictitious history of racism and oppression.  If anyone has a literal and written history of utilizing States’ rights for the expressed purpose of perpetuating racism and oppression, its the DNC and the left.  Below is a piece of the actual Democratic Party Platform of 1856:

В Resolved, That the foundation of this union of States having been laid in, and its prosperity, expansion, and pre-eminent example in free government, built upon entire freedom in matters of religious concernment, and no respect of person in regard to rank or place of birth; no party can justly be deemed national, constitutional, or in accordance with American principles, which bases its exclusive organization upon religious opinions and accidental birth-place. And hence a political crusade in the nineteenth century, and in the United States of America, against Catholic and foreign-born is neither justified by the past history or the future prospects of the country, nor in unison with the spirit of toleration and enlarged freedom which peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular government.

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of Domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the States.

1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850; “the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor,” included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

4. That the Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold, the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799; that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import.

And that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the people, North and South, to the Constitution and the Union—

1. Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue—and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories; and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the “slavery question” upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union—NON-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN STATE AND TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

2. That this was the basis of the compromises of 1850 confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in national Conventions—ratified by the people in the election of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization of Territories in 1854.

3. That by the uniform application of this Democratic principle to the organization of territories, and to the admission of new States, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect—the equal rights, of all the States will be preserved intact; the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate; and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future American State that may be constituted or annexed, with a republican form of government.

Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29576

Funny, the DNC has to be dragged, kicking & screaming, to mention the word “GOD” one time, but they can mention slavery some ten times in their party planks.

Now, if you will, compare and contrast to the GOP party platform, dating back from the same year:

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism–Polygamy, and Slavery.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29619

Does that sound the same, to you?  I guess, if you’re an idiot or a libertarian, they do.  The leftists falsely declared they’d comply with the wishes of the federal government regarding slavery, and yet literally and traitorously took up arms against fellow Americans to engage in the first War on Terror, to protect their non-existent rights to deprive others of their lives and freedom.  After that, the DNC continues it’s pattern, which persists to this very day:

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Actstating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

What are these “Black Codes”,  you ask?

Black Codes

Black Codes was a name given to laws passed by southern governments established during the presidency of Andrew Johnson. These laws imposed severe restrictions on freed slaves such as prohibiting their right to vote, forbidding them to sit on juries, limiting their right to testify against white men, carrying weapons in public places and working in certain occupations.

After the American Civil War the Radical Republicans advocated the passing of the Civil Rights Bill, legislation that was designed to protect freed slaves from Southern Black Codes (laws that placed severe restrictions on freed slaves such as prohibiting their right to vote, forbidding them to sit on juries, limiting their right to testify against white men, carrying weapons in public places and working in certain occupations).

In April 1866, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill. Johnson told Thomas C. Fletcher, the governor of Missouri: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.” His views on racial equality was clearly defined in a letter to Benjamin B. French, the commissioner of public buildings: “Everyone would, and must admit, that the white race was superior to the black, and that while we ought to do our best to bring them up to our present level, that, in doing so, we should, at the same time raise our own intellectual status so that the relative position of the two races would be the same.”

Radical Republicans repassed the Civil Rights Bill and were also 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.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASblackcodes.htm

Now, rightfully, Senator Chuck Sumner (surprisingly, a DNC member) criticized Linclon for allowing these codes to continue, during Reconstruction, instead of ordering them terminated.  Not surprisingly, Sumner became a “radical Republican” after a fellow democrat (Preston Brooks) attempted to beat him to death on the Senate floor with a cane, critically injuring him and crippling him for life, for having the audacity to speak against their racist, bigoted political beliefs.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASsumner.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbrooksP.htm

The phrase “Radical Republicans” has popped up.  Let’s take a look at that, too:

Radical 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 StevensCharles SumnerJoshua GiddingsBenjamin WadeWilliam D. KelleyOwen LovejoyHenry Winter DavisGeorge W. Julian, John P. HaleBenjamin ButlerJoseph Medill,Horace GreeleyOliver Morton, John LoganJames F. WilsonTimothy HoweGeorge H. WilliamsElihu WashburneSchuyler ColfaxZachariah ChandlerJames AshleyGeorge BoutwellJohn CovodeJames GarfieldHannibal HamlinJames HarlanJohn AndrewLyman TrumbullBenjamin LoanWendell PhillipsFrederick DouglassCharles Drake and Henry Wilson.

After the 1860 elections the Radical Republicans became a powerful force in Congress. Several were elected as chairman of important committees. This included Thaddeus Stevens (Ways and Means), Owen Lovejoy (Agriculture), James Ashley(Territories), 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 GeneralJohn C. FremontOn 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 asEdwin 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 insistence that the white power structure in the South should be removed, most Radical Republications argued that the defeated forces should be treated leniently. Even while the American Civil War was going on Charles Sumnerargued that: “A humane and civilized 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 DavisLyman Trumbull and Hannibal Hamlin campaigned for better treatment of those Confederate leaders still in prison andJames 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 ChaseThe 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 TrumbullWilliam 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 argued that the issue cost the Henry Wilson 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, Republican Party. When Benjamin Wade

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

The first Grand Wizard was , 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. , who they blamed for the election of After the a group of former soldiers from the founded the . American Civil WarConfederate ArmyKu Klux KlanNathan ForrestImmigrants, were also targets of their hatred. Radical Republicans

in Congress urged President Radical Republicans to take action against the Ulysses S. Grant. After a campaign led by Ku Klux Klan and Oliver Morton, Grant agreed in 1870 to instigated an investigation into the organization and the following year a Grand Jury reported that: Congress passed the 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 Butler“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.”

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASradical.htm

Well, they weren’t all perfect, that’s for sure, but they were a damned-sight better than the sorry sacks of horse shit we have for “Republicans”, today, for the most party.  They could learn from their “radicalism”.  In any event, does it still sound like the GOP is the architect of institutional racism in the US?  I guess if you’re liberal (i.e.:  stupid), that answer is “yes”.  I continue:

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Once, again, the racist GOP strikes down equality and freedom, right?  What was the Civil Rights Act of 1866?:

1866 Civil Rights Act

TheCivil Rights Act (1866) was passed by Congress on 9th April 1866 over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. The act declared that all persons born in the United States were now citizens, without regard to race, color, or previous condition. As citizens they could make and enforce contracts, sue and be sued, give evidence in court, and inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property. Persons who denied these rights to former slaves were guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction faced a fine not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both. The activities of organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan undermined the workings of this act and it failed to guarantee the civil rights of African Americans.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil1866.htm

Let us also not forget that the GOP ram-rodded through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which, in part, states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

According to the Wikipedia, the background is as follows:

Section 1 formally defines citizenship and protects a person’s civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the overruling of the Dred Scott decision’s ruling that black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.[2] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to the Black Codes that southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States.[3] The Black Codes attempted to return former slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.

Finally, this section was in response to violence against black people within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people’s rights and welfare within those states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Mark Levin put more succinctly:  the 14th Amendment was put into place, because the DNC was still in favor of shutting blacks out of voting, and even for mass deportation of former slaves and their descendants, back to Africa.  This law clearly established that these people (the former slaves and their kin) are subject to the jurisdiction of this country, and therefore, citizens.  Leftists, today, have been trying to pervert this law, and say that it gives illegal aliens the right to be called citizens, just because they may get away with coming here and reproducing on our soil.  Not so.  Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction”, but subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they came from.  They are not citizens.  The slaves and their families, on the other hand, were and are, to this day.  Still convinced that its the GOP that stands for inequality and racism?  That’s because you’re stupid.

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

“This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”  Hmmm.   I don’t recall any Republican president saying anything like that.  Nor do I seem to recall the GOP ever using the slogan  “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”.  Let us also not neglect to mention that the GOP did not, and does not, employ a domestic terrorist wing, like the DNC does.  What “domestic terrorist wing”, you ask?  They’re called the Ku Klux Klan.

History of the Democrats and the KKK (Why the Democrats Started the KKK)

Posted on Thu Aug 06 2009 12:59:36 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) by IrishMike

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbu More..ilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

“Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective,” Barton said in his book. “Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings.”

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

“Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party,” Barton writes in his book. “In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

“The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death,” he said. “Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included.”

Barton also has covered the subject in one episode of his American Heritage Series of television programs, which is being broadcast now on Trinity Broadcasting Network and Cornerstone Television.

Barton told WND his comments are not a condemnation or endorsement of any party or candidate, but rather a warning that voters even today should be aware of what their parties and candidates stand for.

His book outlines the aggressive pro-slavery agenda held by the Democratic Party for generations leading up to the Civil War, and how that did not die with the Union victory in that war of rebellion.

Even as the South was being rebuilt, the votes in Congress consistently revealed a continuing pro-slavery philosophy on the part of the Democrats, the book reveals.

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

“The records of Congress reveal that not one Democrat � either in the House or the Senate � voted for the 14th Amendment,” Barton wrote. “Three years after the Civil War, and the Democrats from the North as well as the South were still refusing to recognize any rights of citizenship for black Americans.”

He also noted that South Carolina Gov. Wade Hampton at the 1868 Democratic National Convention inserted a clause in the party platform declaring the Congress’ civil rights laws were “unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void.”

It was the same convention when Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first grand wizard of the KKK, was honored for his leadership.

Barton’s book notes that in 1868, Congress heard testimony from election worker Robert Flournoy, who confessed while he was canvassing the state of Mississippi in support of the 13th and 14th Amendments, he could find only one black, in a population of 444,000 in the state, who admitted being a Democrat.

Nor is Barton the only person to raise such questions. In 2005, National Review published an article raising similar points. The publication said in 1957 President Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to desegregate the Little Rock, Ark., schools over the resistance of Democrat Gov. Orval Faubus.

Further, three years later, Eisenhower signed the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats, and in 1964, Democrat President Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd’s 14-hour filibuster, and the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats, including Tennessee’s Al Gore Sr., failed to scuttle the plan.

Read more at:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2309727/posts

Yet the left would have you believe the polar opposite of the truth, and claim that the KKK is composed of Republicans, pointing to people like David Duke, and hoping that you don’t know that Duke, originally, was a member of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke

As for the Klan Act, leftists would have you believe the GOP was the creator of the KKK.  That’s not true, but the GOP did have significant doings with that long-standing terrorist organization.  One example is the president demonized by the left as “Useless” S. Grant, claiming, falsely, he was a worthless, do nothing president.  Why?  Because he was a Republican, a friend of Lincoln, a fighter from the Civil War that took on and defeated rampaging, murderous, racist leftists, and he sought to take harsh, military action against the evil Ku Klux Klan.

The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (ch. 22, 17 Stat. 13 [codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.A. § 241, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1988]), also called the Civil Rights Act of 1871 or the Force Act of 1871, was one of several important Civil Rights Acts passed by Congress during Reconstruction, the period following the Civil War when the victorious northern states attempted to create a new political order in the South. The act was intended to protect African Americans from violence perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a white supremacist group.

In March 1871, President ulysses s. grant requested from Congress legislation that would address the problem of KKK violence, which had grown steadily since the group’s formation in 1866. Congress responded on April 20, 1871, with the passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act, originally introduced as a bill “to enforce the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and for other purposes.” Section 1 of the act covered enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment and was later codified, in part, at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Section 2 of the act, codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3), provided civil and criminal penalties intended to deal with conspiratorial violence of the kind practiced by the Klan. Both sections of the act were intended to give federal protection to Fourteenth Amendment rights that were regularly being violated by private individuals as opposed to the state.

In addition, the Ku Klux Klan Act gave the president power to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus in order to fight the KKK. President Grant used this power only once, in October 1871, in ten South Carolina counties experiencing high levels of Klan Terrorism. The act also banned KKK and other conspiracy members from serving on juries.

The Republicans who framed the Ku Klux Klan Act intended it to provide a federal remedy for private conspiracies of the sort practiced by the KKK against African Americans and others. As had become all too apparent by 1871, local and state courts were ineffective in prosecuting Klan violence. Local and state law enforcement officials, including judges, were often sympathetic to the KKK or were subject to intimidation by the group, as were trial witnesses. The Ku Klux Klan Act would allow victims of Klan violence to take their case to a federal court, where, it was supposed, they would receive a fairer trial.

The act, like other Civil Rights laws from the Reconstruction era, sparked considerable legal debate. Its detractors claimed that the law improperly expanded federal jurisdiction to areas of Criminal Law better left to the states. The Supreme Court took this view in 1883 when it struck down the criminal provisions of the act’s second section on the ground that protecting individuals from private conspiracies was a state and not federal function (United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S. Ct. 601, 27 L. Ed. 290). This and other rulings stripped the Ku Klux Klan Act of much of its power. Like many other civil rights laws from its era, it went largely unenforced in succeeding decades.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ku+Klux+Klan+Act

Moving right along:

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

Now let’s look at the Republicans’ Enforcement Act:

Between 1870 and 1871 Congress passed the Enforcement Acts — criminal codes that protected blacks’ right to vote, hold office, serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. If the states failed to act, the laws allowed the federal government to intervene. The target of the acts was the Ku Klux Klan, whose members were murdering many blacks and some whites because they voted, held office, or were involved with schools. 

Many states were afraid to take strong action against the Klan either because the political leaders sympathized with the Klan, were members, or because they were too weak to act. A number of Republican governors were afraid of sending black militia troops to fight the Klan for fear of triggering a race war. But once Congress passed the Enforcement Acts, the situation shifted. One of the Acts, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, made private criminal acts federal crimes; consequently, President Grant decreed that “insurgents were in rebellion against the authority of the United States.” He sent federal troops to restore law and order to many areas where violence was raging at its worst. 

In nine counties of South Carolina, martial law was declared and Klansmen were tried before predominantly black juries. Much of the credit for prosecuting the Klan belonged to Amos Ackerman, Grant’s Attorney General, who did his best to make the country aware of the extent of Klan violence. As a result of his efforts, a few hundred Klansmen were tried and sent to jail. Thousands of others fled or were let off with fines or warnings. By 1872, the Klan as an organization was broken. By the time the terror ended, thousands of blacks and hundreds of whites had been massacred or driven from their homes and communities. For a moment, it seemed that peace and Republican rule was restored. Yet within a few years, the terror was reborn and Reconstruction officially ended. 

— Richard Wormser

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_enforce.html

That was one of the pivotal events that helped break the back of Jim Crow, which was a DNC invention.  Straight from the horse’s ass:

“There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the voter Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit a franchise that we see today.”-William Jefferson Clinton; wife-cheating, oath-breaking, perjurious, impeached, law-license suspended, pervert, hick and rapist emeritus hero of the DNC

And from that other idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oEaUsIFEis

Human Events (@ humanevents.com) gives a pretty good look at Jim Crow, and the Jim Culprits:

In 1832, the phrase “Jim Crow” was born.  By 1900, every former Confederate state (including Wyoming, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Kentucky, Kansas and Oklahoma) had enacted “Jim Crow” laws prohibiting everything from interracial marriage to racially integrated public school systems.  These state laws served to place blacks back on a virtual plantation.  Similar to the “Black Codes” that came before them, Jim Crow laws were numerous.  However, one denominator codified their sound support in Southern states:  They all resulted from Democratic legislators of the “Solid South.”
 
When Bill Clinton was 18, his future vice president’s father, Sen. Al Gore Sr., was locked arm-in-arm with other segregationist Democrats to kill the Civil Rights act of 1964.  Clinton’s “mentor” and “friend,” klansman J. William Fulbright, joined the Dixiecrats, an ultra-segregationist wing of Democratic lawmakers, in filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and in killing the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
 
Clinton, now 64, in his dotage, probably forgot (or was too embarrassed) to mention to the far-Left crowd of youngsters that his party is the party of segregation.  Or as Congressman Jessie Jackson Jr. (D.-Ill.) explained in an interview with Fox News contributor Angela McGlowan in her book Bamboozled:
 
“There is no doubt that the Democratic Party is the party of the Confederacy, historically, that the Democratic Party’s flag is the Confederate flag.  It was our party’s flag.  That Jefferson Davis was a Democrat, that Stonewall Jackson strongly identified with the Democratic Party, that secessionists in the South saw themselves as Democrats and were Democrats.  That so much of the Democratic Party’s history, since it is our nation’s oldest political party, has its roots in slavery.”
 
How did the same Jim Crow Democrats who fought tooth-and-nail with segregationists to keep blacks on a virtual plantation become the party that now wins 95% of the black vote?  Republicans passed Civil Rights laws, Democrats wrote revisionist history.

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/10/democrats-should-know-jim-crow-they-created-him/

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

We’re constantly being inundated by leftists that claim people like Tea Party activists and other Conservatives are on the brink of pushing the US into a second session of civil warfighting.  That they’re violent and push violence through their messages, including “dogwhistle racism” (a term coined by leftists that know they’re making shit up, and couldn’t really point to an actual example of Conservative racism, to save their miserable, continually depreciating, junk-bond status lives).  Yet, could someone give me an example where Conservatives, acting under the aegis of white supremacism, have literally stormed a government building, with the intent of overthrowing the government (which happens to be a felony, by the way)?

I didn’t think so.

 

 

iiii

Advertisements

~ by virusx on September 8, 2012.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: