NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post Reply
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR June 28, 2020

Opinion: No More Enduring Symbol Have We Than They


Special to the Mirror by Paul Plante.

As we watch, more and more of the history of America gets attacked on a day-to-day basis.

For example, just the other day, we had an article from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel entitled “Madison protesters tear down Capitol statues, attack state Senator from Milwaukee as fury erupts again” by Molly Beck and Lawrence Andrea on 24 June 2020, where we were informed of yet another racially-motivated night of violence in America, as follows:

MADISON – Fury exploded outside the Wisconsin State Capitol on Tuesday night as protesters smashed windows at the statehouse, attacked a state senator, and tore down two iconic statues — including one of an abolitionist who died trying to end slavery during the Civil War.

The unrest began earlier Tuesday following the arrest of a Black man who was arrested after bringing a megaphone and a baseball bat into a Capitol square restaurant.

Protesters, chanting for the release of the man who’d been arrested earlier, also broke glass at the Tommy Thompson Center on West Washington Avenue, smashed windows and lights at the state Capitol, and set a small fire at the Dane County jail before police arrived just before 1 a.m.

The destruction followed similar incidents in cities nationwide following the death of Floyd in Minneapolis.

But in other cities, statues of Confederate soldiers and other symbols of slavery were destroyed.

In Madison, statues of Wisconsin’s motto “Forward” and of Col. Hans Christian Heg were dragged away from their spots guarding the statehouse.

Heg was an anti-slavery activist who fought and died for the Union during the U.S. Civil War.

His nearly 100-year-old sculpture was decapitated and thrown into a Madison lake by protesters.

end quotes

Ah, yes, symbols of slavery, even though in that case, they weren’t, where a statue of an anti-slavery activist who fought and died for the Union during the U.S. Civil War was beheaded by ISIS in America and thrown into a lake.

But does that really matter anymore, who the statues were or weren’t?

And of course it doesn’t!

Mob violence is unthinking violence, afterall.

If the mob thinks something smacks of slavery, that is all that is needed for them to mindlessly destroy it, just as ISIS destroys cultural artifacts in Iraq and Syria to remove the past from the lives of people today, as people with no history are easily manipulated.

Which takes us to an article in the New York Post entitled “Family of woman portrayed as Aunt Jemima opposes rebrand saying ‘we do not want that history erased’” by Jackie Salo published June 22, 2020 at 11:59 a.m. ET, where we were informed as follows:

The family of a Texas woman who once portrayed Aunt Jemima has called on the breakfast brand to reconsider its decision to scrap the ubiquitous fixture from its products.

Vera Harris said the family takes pride in Quaker Oates scouting her second cousin Lillian Richard to become a brand representative in 1925, news station KLTV reported.

“She was considered a hero in [her hometown of] Hawkins, and we are proud of that.”

“We do not want that history erased,” Harris said.

Harris said Richard worked for the company for 23 years, traveling around as Aunt Jemima to serve pancakes until she suffered a stroke.

“She made an honest living out of it for a number of years.”

“She toured around Texas,” Harris said, noting there “wasn’t a lot of jobs, especially for black women back in that time.”

Harris said the family was upset by Quaker Oates’ announcement last week that it would rebrand Aunt Jemima products because the character’s origins are “based on a racial stereotype.”

“We want the world to know that our cousin Lillian was one of the Aunt Jemimas and she made an honest living.”

“We would ask that you reconsider just wiping all that away,” Harris said.

“I wish we would take a breath and not just get rid of everything, because good or bad, it is our history.”

“Removing that wipes away a part of me — a part of each of us.”

end quotes

Racial stereotype?

Aunt Jemima?

What racial stereotype?

What kind of rank BULL**** is that?

I grew up poor in the country in a place with cold winters when pancakes were a staple, and I always took a great deal of comfort seeing Aunt Jemima’s smiling face there on the kitchen table waiting for me, and like the members of her family, I too do not want to see that history be erased.

And my goodness, even a ride at Disneyworld is being considered “racist” because it is based on Walt Disney’s movie “Song of the South,” which I saw in a fancy big-city movie theater with uniformed ushers when I was young.

Which brings us to an NBC News article entitled “‘They committed treason’: Pelosi pushes for removal of Confederate statues, military base names” by Rebecca Shabad on June 11, 2020, where we had as follows:

She said Thursday that “public sentiment is everything” and now, “the timing might be just right” to remove these artifacts as the nation confronts systemic racism.

“They committed treason against the United States,” Pelosi said of Jefferson Davis and Alexander, the president and vice president of the Confederate states respectively.

end quotes

That statement by Nancy Pelosi about Jefferson Davis committing treason against the United States brought me back in time to 7th grade American history, and the fact that lo and behold, just like Nancy Pelosi, Jefferson Davis was a Democrat.

As a member of the Democratic Party, Jefferson Davis represented Mississippi in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives before the American Civil War.

Speaking of enduring symbols of slavery in America, before the American Civil War, Jefferson Davis operated a large cotton plantation in Mississippi, which his brother Joseph gave him, and owned as many as 113 slaves.

As to ditzy Nancy’s false assertion that Democrat Jefferson Davis committed treason, high school history which Nancy never apparently learned says otherwise, to wit:

After Davis was captured in 1865, he was accused of treason and imprisoned at Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia.

He was never tried and was released after two years.

end quotes

As to Alexander Hamilton Stephens, the American politician who served as the vice president of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1865, and later as the 50th Governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883, he too, not surprisingly, since it was the Democrats who seceded from the United States so they could own black people as slaves, was a member of the Democratic Party, representing the state of Georgia in the United States House of Representatives prior to becoming Governor.

So there we are, people, two for two with regard to enduring symbols of slavery in America being Democrats!

And why shouldn’t they be, given the most enduring symbol of slavery in the United States today isn’t Aunt Jemima – it is the Democrat Party of Nancy Pelosi!

So why?

When we are tearing down every single possible symbol of our past that might in the remotest way possible remind us of slavery, why are we giving the Democrat party, the very people who gave us racism and slavery in this nation, a free pass?

If there is any symbol of slavery and racism in America that needs to be torn down and relegated to the trashbin of history where it belongs, it is the Democrat party itself!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... than-they/

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR June 28, 2020 at 12:49 pm

Paul Plante says :

By way of some factual background here on this issue of slavery in the United States of America which we will never get from an airhead like Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn’t be able to find America on a map of America set before ditzy Nancy, and by the way, the Jesuit missionary Isaac Jogues, a white skin, was a slave of the Mohawk Indians in what became New York state, which is an indication of not only how universal slavery as an institution was back then, but that it was not restricted to people with white skin only as slave owners, let’s go to the records of the United States Senate itself, in the article “The Civil War: The Senate’s Story,” where we learn about the same stuff I was taught in grade school and high school, classes Nancy Pelosi obviously missed, as follows:

The Road to War

Conflict and Compromise


Sectional disputes dominated debate during the period between the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 and brought to the Chamber a group of talented legislators and powerful orators.

In the Senate, where the Constitution established an equality of states, there existed a delicate balance between North and South, slave and free states.

end quotes

As an aside, this sounds like some more history that should be obliterated because it dares to mention the word “slave.”

Getting back to that history before ISIS in America has those pages ripped out of the history books and burned, we have:

For many years, senators crafted legislation designed to resolve sectional conflicts and avoid secession and civil war.

In the 1850s, however, further efforts at compromise failed.

The Senate endured a violent and turbulent decade that propelled the nation to the brink of war.

end quotes

For the record, that is ancient history, and Nancy Pelosi was not born then, nor did she experience any of that, as was also the case with all the black folks alive today like the pus-filled sack of pure white hatred Alvin Sharpton, who would have us believe they were still slaves waiting to be emancipated.

Getting back to that history, which like all history is now over and in the past, at least in the minds of the more sane and rational people of America, we have:

The rapid expansion of the nation, as settlers moved west and new territories applied for statehood, repeatedly raised the issue of slavery.

The Constitution allowed slavery to exist in the states but left Congress to decide its status in the territories.

The Northern states, having abolished slavery, sought to prevent its spread, while the Southern states, having grown more dependent on slave labor, asserted the rights of Southerners to transport their way of life into the new territories.

end quotes

With respect to Col. Hans Christian Heg in Madison, Wisconsin, the anti-slavery activist who fought and died for the Union during the U.S. Civil War whose nearly 100-year-old sculpture was decapitated and thrown into a Madison lake by ISIS in America as they work to destroy our history as a nation, note the phrase “(T)he Northern states, having abolished slavery, sought to prevent its spread.”

Getting back to that history:

In 1820 the Missouri Compromise drew a line across the nation at the 36th parallel, above which slavery would be prohibited, and below which it could expand.

end quotes

Doing some quick math here, 1820 was TWO HUNDRED (200) years ago, so anyone alive today who is less that 200 years old was not involved in any of that, nor were they directly affected by it, although that is not what we are being told today by such sob sisters as Nancy Pelosi, who would have us believe that black people in America today are still the victims of what happened 200 years ago, notwithstanding we have had a black president, a black Supreme Court Justice, a black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. military, and on and on and on.

And back to American history 101 as taught in the 7th grade in America, to wit:

When the war with Mexico, from 1846 to 1848, resulted in vast new territories in the southwest, the debate over expansion of slavery was renewed.

In 1850 Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky introduced a package of compromise measures to relieve the sectional tensions created by territorial expansion.

Aware of the controversial nature of his proposals, Clay urged his colleagues to “beware, to pause, to reflect before they lend themselves to any purposes which shall destroy that Union.”

On March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts rose from his Senate seat and declared: “I wish to speak today, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American . . .”

“I speak today for the preservation of the Union.”

end quotes

Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts figures prominently in this history of America Nancy Pelosi is completely unaware of, because to be Speaker of the House of Representatives today, at least as a Democrat, you can be as dumb as a box of rocks and completely ignorant of American history, because of his famous debate in 1830 on the question of state’s rights and slavery against DEMOCRAT Robert Young Hayne (November 10, 1791 – September 24, 1839), an American lawyer, planter and politician who served in the United States Senate from 1823 to 1832, as Governor of South Carolina 1832–1834, and as Mayor of Charleston 1836–1837, as well as a vocal proponent of the states’ rights doctrine.

And moving right along here with everything Nancy Pelosi never learned about America and doesn’t care to know about today, because she makes up history as she goes, we have:

Other senators, most notably John Calhoun of South Carolina, opposed Clay’s plan.

end quotes

And as we who actually paid attention back in the 7th grade remember well, DEMOCRAT John Caldwell Calhoun (March 18, 1782 – March 31, 1850) was an American statesman and political theorist from South Carolina who served as the seventh vice president of the United States from 1825 to 1832 who is remembered for strongly defending slavery and for advancing the concept of minority states’ rights in politics.

As I say, in the United States of America today, no more enduring symbol of slavery have we than they, the DEMOCRAT party of Nancy Pelosi!

But stay tuned, because this history of how the DEMOCRATS promoted and protected slavery in the United States of America, and were still promoting segregation in America well into the 20th century with the Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party unanimously adopted at Oklahoma City, August 14, 1948, is far from over, to wit:

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one’s associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one’s living in any lawful way.

We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-257755

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR June 29, 2020 at 10:34 am

Paul Plante says:

Getting back to the history of the treasonous Democrat party of Nancy Pelosi being the most enduring symbol of slavery we have in this nation, bar none, the Compromise of 1850 admitted California as a free state, left open the possibility of slavery in the territories of New Mexico and Utah, abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and created a stronger fugitive slave law.

Anxious to build a transcontinental railroad from Chicago to the West Coast, Senator Douglas introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 to organize those territories for statehood.

To meet the objections of Southerners who were promoting a southern route for the railroad, the act opened the territories for settlement, but provided that the settlers, through “popular sovereignty,” could allow or prohibit slavery.

This undermined the 1820 Missouri Compromise and further inflamed the passions in the North and the South.

Both slaveholders and abolitionists flooded into the new territories to influence votes on state constitutions.

Communities erupted into violence in what became known as “Bleeding Kansas.”

Ah, yes, “Bleeding Kansas!”

For those who might have forgotten, “Bleeding Kansas” was a mini civil war between pro- and anti-slavery forces that occurred in Kansas from 1856 to 1865.

When I was taught this basic American history when I was young, it was for the purpose of making us understand just how fragile “civilization” really is, and we were supposed to know this history of where we have been in this nation so as to not REPEAT IT!

Following the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, thousands of Northerners and Southerners came to the newly created Kansas Territory, and many Northerners intended to prevent slavery at all costs.

Thereafter between roughly 1855 and 1859, Kansans engaged in a violent guerrilla war between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces in the event known as Bleeding Kansas which significantly shaped American politics and contributed to the coming of the Civil War.

In May 1856 Senator Charles Sumner, a fiery abolitionist from Massachusetts, delivered a five-hour oration in the Senate Chamber entitled “The Crime Against Kansas.”

Sumner’s inflammatory speech was a harsh indictment of those who supported the spread of slavery and attacked several senators by name, including Andrew Butler of South Carolina.

For the record, Andrew Pickens Butler (November 18, 1796 – May 25, 1857) was a United States Senator from South Carolina who was appointed to the United States Senate in 1846 as a States’ Rights Democrat and elected thereafter to finish the term ending in 1849, and who was an ardent advocate of slavery.

On May 22, 1856, Preston Brooks — a member of the House of Representatives and Senator Butler’s relative — retaliated.

After the Senate had adjourned for the day, Brooks approached Sumner at his desk in the Senate Chamber and repeatedly struck him on the head with his heavy walking stick, breaking the wooden cane into pieces.

Badly injured by the attack, Sumner was able to appear in the Senate only intermittently over the next three years, as he slowly recovered.

His empty desk became visible evidence that legislative compromise could no longer settle the emotional and divisive issue of slavery in the territories.

Preston Smith Brooks (August 5, 1819 – January 27, 1857), the attacker of Sumner was a Democrat who was a strong advocate of slavery and states’ rights.

Came the presidential election of 1860 which Abraham Lincoln won on November 6, 1860.

Four days later, on November 10, 1860, Senator James Chesnut of South Carolina resigned his Senate seat.

While the ditzy Nancy Pelosi has us focused on the issue of treason, James Chesnut Jr. (January 18, 1815 – February 1, 1885), a lawyer prominent in South Carolina state politics, served as a Democratic senator in 1858-60.

On Lincoln’s election in 1860, Chesnut resigned from the U.S. Senate and took part in the South Carolina secession convention, later helping to draft the Confederate States Constitution.

He then served as a Deputy from South Carolina to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States from 1861 to 1862, and he also served as a senior officer of the Confederate States Army in the Eastern Theater of the American Civil War.

As an aide to General P.G.T. Beauregard, Chesnut, the Democrat, ordered the firing on Fort Sumter and served at First Manassas.

Later he was aide to Jefferson Davis and promoted to Brigadier-General.

The day after Chesnut left the United States Senate, his fellow South Carolinian, Senator James Hammond, submitted his own resignation and turned his attention to establishing the Confederacy, which he pledged to support “with all the strength I have.”

James Henry Hammond (November 15, 1807 – November 13, 1864), another Democrat, was best known during his lifetime as an outspoken defender of slavery and states’ rights, who was considered one of the major spokesmen in favor of slavery in the years before the American Civil War.

Acquiring property through marriage, Hammond ultimately owned 22 square miles, several plantations and houses, and more than 300 slaves.

One of Democrat Hammond’s famous quotes was as follows:

“I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson that ‘all men are born equal.'”

So yes, people, since Nancy Pelosi has chosen to re-open this ugly chapter of American history in her bid to further divide us going into the November elections, as I say, in the United States of America today, no more enduring symbol of slavery have we than they, the DEMOCRAT party of Nancy Pelosi!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-257889

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR June 30, 2020 at 6:51 pm

Paul Plante says :

We older Americans who were required to know the history of the nation we were preparing to be a part of cannot hear the name of Democrat James Henry Hammond, who publicly repudiated, as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but nowhere accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson that ‘all men are born equal,’” without recalling the “Mudsill theory” of the Democrats, which political theory is the proposition that there must be, and always has been, a lower class or underclass for the upper classes and the rest of society to rest upon.

That in fact is the basis of DEMOCRACY – the need to have a majority, which automatically means there has to be a minority, because equality does not exist in a democracy.

As we learned in high school, and as Wikipedia informs us today, the Mudsill theory was first articulated by South Carolina Democrat and Senator/Governor James Henry Hammond, a wealthy southern plantation owner, in a Senate speech on March 4, 1858, to justify what he saw as the willingness of the lower classes and the duty of non-whites to perform menial work which enabled the higher classes to move civilization forward.

Efforts to reduce class or racial inequality, under this theory, inevitably run counter to civilization itself.

Many saw the argument as a weak justification for exploitation and a flimsy example of creating science to reference as proof.

end quotes

But that is what Democrats do – create BULL**** science theories like Hillary Clinton in 2016 saying that people with white skin were afflicted with a mental disorder Hillary labeled as “Implicit Bias,” which required treatment by the state in special facilities to cure it.

Although an obvious flaw lied in that there are no indications as to which class or race rightfully belongs to the mudsill other than the pre-supposed regional groups that were already in place at the “bottom,” thus causing a circular argument, nonetheless, it was directly used to advocate slavery in the rhetoric of other Democrats, who were struggling to maintain their grip on the Southern economy.

The Democrats saw the abolition of slavery as a threat to their powerful new Southern market that revolved almost entirely around the plantation system, which was furthered by the use of primarily-African slaves but also used destitute whites.

Interestingly, those and other colloquialisms were used as Democrat rhetoric in what has been dubbed “the Marxism of the Master-Class” which fought for the rights of the propertied elite against what were perceived as threats from the abolitionists, lower classes and non-whites to gain higher standards of living.

So yes, Nancy Pelosi, since you have chosen to re-open this ugly chapter of American history in your bid to further divide us going into the November elections, as I say, in the United States of America today, no more enduring symbol of slavery have we than they, the DEMOCRAT party of Nancy Pelosi!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-258042

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Wed Jul 01, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 1, 2020 at 10:45 am

Paul Plante says:

And it is an interesting coincidence that as this series about the Democrats being the most enduring symbol of slavery and racism we have here in the United States of America is running here in the Cape Charles Mirror, at the same time, USA TODAY ran an article entitled “Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War” by somebody named Devon Link, listed as a Fact-Check Intern on their website, on 30 JUNE 2020 wherein is stated as follows:

The claim:

The Democratic Party started the Civil War to preserve slavery and later the KKK.


As America marks a month of protests against systemic racism and many people draw comparisons between current events and the civil rights movement, an oversimplified trope about the Democratic Party’s racist past has been resurrected online.

“Friendly reminder that if you support the Democrat Party, you support the party that founded the KKK and start a civil war to keep their slaves,” claims an image of a tweet Instagram user @snowflake.tears shared on June on 19.

Many Instagram users read between the lines for the tweet’s implication about the modern Democratic and Republican parties.

end quotes

It is notable that USA TODAY turns to Instagram for its intellectual content, because as everyone knows, that site and TWITTER are where the Literati and Intelligentsia of the United States of America congregate today.

And from there, USA TODAY takes us to here, to wit:

Historians agree that although factions of the Democratic Party did majorly contribute to the Civil War’s start and KKK’s founding, it is inaccurate to say the party is responsible for either.

Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter told USA TODAY this trope is a fallback argument used to discredit current Democratic Party policies.

“At the core of the effort to discredit the current Democratic Party is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century,” Hunt said.

In September 2019, NPR host Shereen Marisol Maraji called the claim, “one of the most well-worn clapbacks in modern American politics.”

Comedian Trevor Noah tackled the misleading trope on an episode of “The Daily Show” in March 2016, after two CNN contributors debated the topic.

“Every time I go onto Facebook I see these things: ‘Did you know the Democrats are the real racist party and did you know the Republicans freed the slaves?’” Noah joked.

“A lot of people like to skip over the fact that when it comes to race relations, historically, Republicans and Democrats switched positions.”

A similar meme attributing the claim to U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Ben Carson has been circulating social media since November 2016.

“Who started the KKK?”

“That was Democrats.”

“Who was the party of slavery?”

“Who was the party of Jim Crow and segregation?”

“Who opposed the Civil Rights Movement?”

“Who opposed voting rights?”

“It was all the Democrats,” the meme reads.

Other posts making more specific claims about the Democratic Party starting the Civil War or founding the KKK continue to circulate.

This trope was rated false by PolitiFact and the Associated Press in October 2018.

end quotes

Which serves as an indication that whoever PolitiFact is, they never bothered to learn American history or to check their own facts, and the Associated Press is playing a mind game with us of having us believe that they as a “news-gathering organization” are possessed of a very sharp scalpel that can separate “THE DEMOCRAT PARTY” from the actual humans who comprise the Democrat party, so that in some undefined way, the Democrat party has a totally separate existence from those who actually comprise the party, which then serves to give the Democrat party a completely unblemished record unrelated to either slavery or racism, which of course, is totally bogus, because if we go to Wikipedia under the heading “Party Leader,” we have as follows:

The President becomes the de facto leader of the party they represent once elected, and the Vice President likewise holds a leadership role as both the second-highest executive officer as well as being the President of the Senate.

end quotes

Given that, when he was president, Democrat Andrew Johnson was the leader of the Democrat Party, and as to his feelings as head of the party concerning the black folks having the right to vote, this is what he stated to the nation in his State of the Union for 1867 on 3 December 1867, to wit:

It is manifestly and avowedly the object of these laws to confer upon Negroes the privilege of voting and to disfranchise such a number of white citizens as will give the former a clear majority at all elections in the Southern States.

This, to the minds of some persons, is so important that a violation of the Constitution is justified as a means of bringing it about.

The morality is always false which excuses a wrong because it proposes to accomplish a desirable end.

We are not permitted to do evil that good may come.

But in this case the end itself is evil, as well as the means.

The subjugation of the States to Negro domination would be worse than the military despotism under which they are now suffering.

It was believed beforehand that the people would endure any amount of military oppression for any length of time rather than degrade themselves by subjection to the Negro race.

Therefore they have been left without a choice.

Negro suffrage was established by act of Congress, and the military officers were commanded to superintend the process of clothing the Negro race with the political privileges torn from white men.

The blacks in the South are entitled to be well and humanely governed, and to have the protection of just laws for all their rights of person and property.

If it were practicable at this time to give them a Government exclusively their own, under which they might manage their own affairs in their own way, it would become a grave question whether we ought to do so, or whether common humanity would not require us to save them from themselves.

But under the circumstances this is only a speculative point.

It is not proposed merely that they shall govern themselves, but that they shall rule the white race, make and administer State laws, elect Presidents and members of Congress, and shape to a greater or less extent the future destiny of the whole country.

Would such a trust and power be safe in such hands?

The peculiar qualities which should characterize any people who are fit to decide upon the management of public affairs for a great state have seldom been combined.

It is the glory of white men to know that they have had these qualities in sufficient measure to build upon this continent a great political fabric and to preserve its stability for more than ninety years, while in every other part of the world all similar experiments have failed.

But if anything can be proved by known facts, if all reasoning upon evidence is not abandoned, it must be acknowledged that in the progress of nations Negroes have shown less capacity for government than any other race of people.

No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands.

On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism.

In the Southern States, however, Congress has undertaken to confer upon them the privilege of the ballot.

Just released from slavery, it may be doubted whether as a class they know more than their ancestors how to organize and regulate civil society.

Indeed, it is admitted that the blacks of the South are not only regardless of the rights of property, but so utterly ignorant of public affairs that their voting can consist in nothing more than carrying a ballot to the place where they are directed to deposit it.

I need not remind you that the exercise of the elective franchise is the highest attribute of an American citizen, and that when guided by virtue, intelligence, patriotism, and a proper appreciation of our free institutions it constitutes the true basis of a democratic form of government, in which the sovereign power is lodged in the body of the people.

A trust artificially created, not for its own sake, but solely as a means of promoting the general welfare, its influence for good must necessarily depend upon the elevated character and true allegiance of the elector.

It ought, therefore, to be reposed in none except those who are fitted morally and mentally to administer it well; for if conferred upon persons who do not justly estimate its value and who are indifferent as to its results, it will only serve as a means of placing power in the hands of the unprincipled and ambitious, and must eventuate in the complete destruction of that liberty of which it should be the most powerful conservator.

I have therefore heretofore urged upon your attention the great danger — to be apprehended from an untimely extension of the elective franchise to any new class in our country, especially when the large majority of that class, in wielding the power thus placed in their hands, can not be expected correctly to comprehend the duties and responsibilities which pertain to suffrage.

Yesterday, as it were, 4,000,000 persons were held in a condition of slavery that had existed for generations; to-day they are freemen and are assumed by law to be citizens.

It can not be presumed, from their previous condition of servitude, that as a class they are as well informed as to the nature of our Government as the intelligent foreigner who makes our land the home of his choice.

In the case of the latter neither a residence of five years and the knowledge of our institutions which it gives nor attachment to the principles of the Constitution are the only conditions upon which he can be admitted to citizenship; he must prove in addition a good moral character, and thus give reasonable ground for the belief that he will be faithful to the obligations which he assumes as a citizen of the Republic.

Where a people — the source of all political power — speak by their suffrages through the instrumentality of the ballot box, it must be carefully guarded against the control of those who are corrupt in principle and enemies of free institutions, for it can only become to our political and social system a safe conductor of healthy popular sentiment when kept free from demoralizing influences.

Controlled through fraud and usurpation by the designing, anarchy and despotism must inevitably follow.

In the hands of the patriotic and worthy our Government will be preserved upon the principles of the Constitution inherited from our fathers.

It follows, therefore, that in admitting to the ballot box a new class of voters not qualified for the exercise of the elective franchise we weaken our system of government instead of adding to its strength and durability.

I yield to no one in attachment to that rule of general suffrage which distinguishes our policy as a nation.

But there is a limit, wisely observed hitherto, which makes the ballot a privilege and a trust, and which requires of some classes a time suitable for probation and preparation.

To give it indiscriminately to a new class, wholly unprepared by previous habits and opportunities to perform the trust which it demands, is to degrade it, and finally to destroy its power, for it may be safely assumed that no political truth is better established than that such indiscriminate and all-embracing extension of popular suffrage must end at last in its destruction.

I repeat the expression of my willingness to join in any plan within the scope of our constitutional authority which promises to better the condition of the Negroes in the South, by encouraging them in industry, enlightening their minds, improving their morals, and giving protection to all their just rights as freedmen.

But the transfer of our political inheritance to them would, in my opinion, be an abandonment of a duty which we owe alike to the memory of our fathers and the rights of our children.

end quotes

Now, people, that was a Democrat who was the head of the Democrat Party speaking to all of America as the chief executive officer of the whole of the United States of America.

So, who was he speaking for then?

Simply himself?

Stay tuned, for thanks to USA TODAY and PolitiFact and the Associated Press, there is much more to come on this subject of the Democrat party of Nancy Pelosi being the most enduring symbol we have in this nation of slavery and racism.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-258100

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Thu Jul 02, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 2, 2020 at 10:22 am

Paul Plante says :

Going back to this convoluted USA TODAY article entitled “Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War” by somebody named Devon Link, listed as a Fact-Check Intern on their website, on 30 JUNE 2020, we find this bizarre statement, to wit:

As America marks a month of protests against systemic racism and many people draw comparisons between current events and the civil rights movement, an oversimplified trope about the Democratic Party’s racist past has been resurrected online.

end quotes

What makes the statement truly bizarre (very strange or unusual, especially so as to cause interest or amusement) is its assertion that an “oversimplified trope” about the Democratic Party’s racist past has been resurrected online.

If a “trope” is a figurative or metaphorical use of a word or expression, then what on earth can an “oversimplified trope” possibly be, besides a simply stupid expression, which raises the question of does the Democratic Party have a “racist” past, which would make the Democratic Party the most enduring symbol of slavery and racism we have in this nation today, bar none?

That the Democratic Party has a racist past cannot be denied,

Consider, for example, the speech of Democrat Robert Young Hayne (November 10, 1791 – September 24, 1839), an American lawyer, planter and politician who served in the United States Senate from 1823 to 1832, in the United States Senate on January 25, 1830, in what became known as the Webster-Hayne Debates which as anyone who actually studied high school history knows, set the stage for the Civil War in this country, to wit:

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts (Daniel Webster) has gone out of his way to pass a high eulogium on the State of Ohio.

In the most impassioned tones of eloquence, he described her majestic march to greatness.

He told us that, having already left all the other States far behind, she was now passing by Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and about to take her station by the side of New York.

To all this, sir, I was disposed most cordially to respond.

When, however, the gentleman proceeded to contrast the State of Ohio with Kentucky, to the disadvantage of the latter, I listened to him with regret; and when he proceeded further to attribute the great, and, as he supposed, acknowledged superiority of the former in population, wealth, and general prosperity, to the policy of Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, which had secured to the people of Ohio (by the ordinance of ’ 87) a population of freemen, I will confess that my feelings suffered a revulsion, which I am now unable to describe in any language sufficiently respectful towards the gentleman from Massachusetts.

In contrasting the State of Ohio with Kentucky, for the purpose of pointing out the superiority of the former, and of attributing that superiority to the existence of slavery, in the one State, and its absence in the other, I thought I could discern the very spirit of the Missouri question intruded into this debate, for objects best known to the gentleman himself.

Did that gentleman, sir, when he formed the determination to cross the southern border, in order to invade the State of South Carolina, deem it prudent, or necessary, to enlist under his banners the prejudices of the world, which like Swiss troops, may be engaged in any cause, and are prepared to serve under any leader?

Did he desire to avail himself of those remorseless allies, the passions of mankind, of which it may be more truly said, than of the savage tribes of the wilderness, “that their known rule of warfare is an indiscriminate slaughter of all ages, sexes, and conditions?”

Or was it supposed, sir, that, in a premeditated and unprovoked attack upon the South, it was advisable to begin by a gentle admonition of our supposed weakness, in order to prevent us from making that firm and manly resistance, due to our own character, and our dearest interest?

Was the significant hint of the weakness of slave-holding States, when contrasted with the superior strength of free States — like the glare of the weapon half drawn from its scabbard — intended to enforce the lessons of prudence and of patriotism, which the gentleman had resolved, out of his abundant generosity, gratuitously to bestow upon us [said Mr. H.]

The impression which has gone abroad, of the weakness of the South, as connected with the slave question, exposes us to such constant attacks, has done us so much injury, and is calculated to produce such infinite mischiefs, that I embrace the occasion presented by the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts, to declare that we are ready to meet the question promptly and fearlessly.

It is one from which we are not disposed to shrink, in whatever form or under whatever circumstances it may be pressed upon us.

We are ready to make up the issue with the gentleman, as to the influence of slavery on individual and national character — on the prosperity and greatness, either of the United States, or of particular States.

Sir, when arraigned before the bar of public opinion, on this charge of slavery, we can stand up with conscious rectitude, plead not guilty, and put ourselves upon God and our country.

Sir, we will not stop to inquire whether the black man, as some philosophers have contended, is of an inferior race, nor whether his color and condition are the effects of a curse inflicted for the offences of his ancestors.

We deal in no abstractions.

We will not look back to inquire whether our fathers were guiltless in introducing slaves into this country.

If an inquiry should ever be instituted in these matters, however, it will be found that the profits of the slave trade were not confined to the South.

Southern ships and Southern sailors were not the instruments of bringing slaves to the shores of America, nor did our merchants reap the profits of that “accursed traffic.”

But, sir, we will pass over all this.

If slavery, as it now exists in this country, be an evil, we of the present day found it ready made to our hands.

Finding our lot cast among a people, whom God had manifestly committed to our care, we did not sit down to speculate on abstract questions of theoretical liberty.

We met it as a practical question of obligation and duty.

We resolved to make the best of the situation in which Providence had placed us, and to fulfil the high trust which had developed upon us as the owners of slaves, in the only way in which such a trust could be fulfilled, without spreading misery and ruin throughout the land.

We found that we had to deal with a people whose physical, moral, and intellectual habits and character, totally disqualified them from the enjoyment of the blessings of freedom.

We could not send them back to the shores from whence their fathers had been taken; their numbers forbade the thought, even if we did not know that their condition here is infinitely preferable to what it possibly could be among the barren sands and savage tribes of Africa; and it was wholly irreconcileable with all our notions of humanity to tear asunder the tender ties which they had formed among us, to gratify the feelings of a false philanthropy.

What a commentary on the wisdom, justice, and humanity, of the Southern slave owner is presented by the example of certain benevolent associations and charitable individuals elsewhere.

Shedding weak tears over sufferings which had existence only in their own sickly imaginations, these “friends of humanity” set themselves systematically to work to seduce the slaves of the South from their masters.

By means of missionaries and political tracts, the scheme was in a great measure successful.

Thousands of these deluded victims of fanaticism were seduced into the enjoyment of freedom in our Northern cities.

And what has been the consequence?

Go to these cities now, and ask the question.

Visit the dark and narrow lanes, and obscure recesses, which have been assigned by common consent as the abodes of those outcasts of the world — the free people of color.

Sir, there does not exist, on the face of the whole earth, a population so poor, so wretched, so vile, so loathsome, so utterly destitute of all the comforts, conveniences, and decencies of life, as the unfortunate blacks of Philadelphia, and New York, and Boston.

Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities, the heaviest of curses.

Sir, I have had some opportunities of making comparisons between the condition of the free negroes of the North and the slaves of the South, and the comparison has left not only an indelible impression of the superior advantages of the latter, but has gone far to reconcile me to slavery itself.

Never have I felt so forcibly that touching description, “the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man hath not where to lay his head,” as when I have seen this unhappy race, naked and houseless, almost starving in the streets, and abandoned by all the world.

Sir, I have seen in the neighborhood of one of the most moral, religious, and refined cities of the North, a family of free blacks, driven to the caves of the rock, and there obtaining a precarious subsistence from charity and plunder.

end quotes

Now, that happens to be American history as it actually happened, from the mouth of a real Democrat who was part of this nation’s history, as ugly as it has been thanks to the Democratic Party, and if the howling mob bent on tearing down American history to hide and gloss over the Democratic Party’s racist past doesn’t like that history, as far as I am concerned, that’s just too bad for them.

History is what happened, not what we want it to be, or want it not to be, and if the Democrats of today and all their apologists in the media can’t deal with their decidedly racist past, and want to call it an “oversimplified trope,” instead, let them, for it changes nothing at all, because in America today, there is no more enduring symbol of racism and slavery than the Democratic Party.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-258213

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 3, 2020 at 11:11 am

Paul Plante says :

So, reviewing the history lesson in here so far, on January 25, 1830, we had a Democrat senator from South Carolina speaking on the floor of the United States Senate making what the more sensitive among us would call “racist” statements, while promoting “white supremacy,” and thirty-seven (37) years later, in his State of the Union for 1867 on 3 December 1867, we had a Democrat president similarly making what the sensitive among us would also call “racist” statements, while promoting what the sensitive would call “white supremacy.”

Which raises the question of who exactly were they speaking for, if not the Democrat party, itself?

And that question takes us to a CBS News article entitled “Is Obama Falling Short as Party Chief?” on January 29, 2010, where we learn as follows:

Barack Obama built a powerful campaign organization and got himself to the White House.

Now, as head of the Democratic Party, he’s expected to get other Democrats into office, too.

Based on roughly two dozen interviews with lawmakers, party leaders and political operatives nationwide, it’s clear that many Democrats feel Obama hasn’t fully embraced his role as party chief.

Some of these Democrats complained on the record.

Others asked for anonymity to avoid angering Obama and his team.

“Anytime a president’s party loses, the president, because he is the head of the party, has to take some blame and responsibility,” said Don Fowler of South Carolina, a former Democratic National Committee chairman.

end quotes

So, if Democrat Hussein Obama as president was the head of the Democrat party in 2010, what was Democrat president Andrew Johnson in 1867, when he made his “racist” comments in his State of the Union address, where he promoted “white supremacy?”

Or is that a question we are not supposed to consider today, because it makes the Democrats and USA TODAY uncomfortable, being reminded about their racist past?

And what about Democrat Senator from South Carolina Democrat Robert Young Hayne in 1830?

For that answer, let’s first go US History.org and their series on American government, where we find as follows:

6. Congress: The People’s Branch?

The People’s Influence

Americans elect their Senators and Representatives.

One very important question posed by a democratic government involves how elected representatives should behave once sworn into office.

Many considerations influence the voting patterns of members of Congress, including the following:

Party Views.

Congress is organized primarily along party lines, so party membership is an important determinant of a member’s vote.

Each party develops its own version of many important bills, and party leaders actively pressure members to vote according to party views.

It is not surprising that Representatives and Senators vote along party lines about three-fourths of the time.

end quotes

So who was Democrat Senator Hayne speaking for on January 25, 1830, in what became known as the Webster-Hayne Debates, which as anyone who actually studied high school history knows, set the stage for the Civil War in this country?

The Democrat party?

To take that question further, let us go to the U.S. Senate site, itself, where we find listed two separate topics entitled:

* U.S. Senate: Party Division – http://www.senate.gov

* U.S. Senate: Senators Representing Third or Minor Parties – http://www.senate.gov

Hale, Anthony Kennedy, and Waitman T. Willey, each represented two third parties at different times.

end quotes

So given that the U.S. Senate itself considers individual Senators as representing their PARTY in the Senate, then who was Democrat Senator Hayne speaking for on January 25, 1830, in what became known as the Webster-Hayne Debates, when he made his “racist” statements and was promoting “white supremacy” here in the United States of America?

Tell us, Nancy Pelosi, and USA TODAY, because the candid world would really like to know your thoughts on the subject, given that it was you, Nancy, who brought this question to our attention when you called Democrat Jefferson Davis a traitor to America.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-258313

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Sat Jul 04, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 4, 2020 at 12:29 pm

Paul Plante says :

One of the main advantages for those who work for such “main-stream” media outlets as USA TODAY or the Washington Post is the Constitutional freedom given or granted to the main-stream media, rags like USA TODAY and the Washington Post, to be able to lie with impunity, to distort history and to practice intellectual dishonesty with impunity, and no better example of those “freedoms” do we have in the United States of America than the USA TODAY article entitled “Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War” by somebody named Devon Link, listed as a Fact-Check Intern on their website, on 30 JUNE 2020.

In support of that assertion, let us go to this statement from that article, to wit:

As America marks a month of protests against systemic racism and many people draw comparisons between current events and the civil rights movement, an oversimplified trope about the Democratic Party’s racist past has been resurrected online.

end quotes

Consider the phrase “systemic racism.”

In a nation where we had a black president, a black Supreme Court Justice, black Congress members, black senior officers in our military, black mayors, black police chiefs, where exactly is the “systemic racism,” other than in the fanciful minds of those who keep the meme or trope alive so they can capitalize on it for various reasons related to politics and fundraising?

To me, an American citizen, it is intellectually dishonest for the media to keep blasting us with that term “systemic racism,” when they don’t even know what it is, and cannot rationally and intelligently prove or document its existence, but that is as an aside, given the theme of this thread is the Democrat party as our most enduring symbol of slavery and racism in America, bar none, which brings us next to this from that article, to wit:

Historians agree that although factions of the Democratic Party did majorly contribute to the Civil War’s start and KKK’s founding, it is inaccurate to say the party is responsible for either.

Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter told USA TODAY this trope is a fallback argument used to discredit current Democratic Party policies.

“At the core of the effort to discredit the current Democratic Party is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century,” Hunt said.

end quotes

Now, that is an interesting statement presented to us there by this Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter the USA TODAY relies on to give its article a veneer of intellectual legitimacy, as opposed to intellectual dishonesty, that by bringing up the racist past of the Democrat party, by talking about speeches on the floor of the United States Senate by Democrats promoting “racism” and “white supremacy,” or by quoting the State of the Union speech of a Democrat president promoting “racism” and “white supremacy,” at the core is the “refusal” to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century.

So who then is Tera W. Hunter?

According to her bio at the Princeton University website, Tera W. Hunter, an “African-American,” as opposed to an “AMERICAN” like myself, is the Edwards Professor of American History and Professor of African-American Studies, a specialist in the 19th and 20th centuries.

A “specialist” in the 19th and 20th centuries?

How about that.

But so am I, although I don’t need to teach at Princeton to actually be one.

Moving right along here, we learn this about Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter, to wit:

Her research focuses on gender, race, labor, and Southern histories.

end quotes

So, is she neutral on questions related to the history of the Democrat party in America?

Is she an unbiased source?

Or did USA TODAY turn to her as its “source” for the article because it knew beforehand that she is both biased and prejudiced on the subject, and a defender of that party, as a result, which leads to her assertion that “(A)t the core of the effort to discredit the current Democratic Party is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century,” an assertion which ducks the question of whether the “current” Democratic Party is still “racist?”

Going back to her bio, we have as follows:

A native of Miami, Professor Hunter attended Duke University where she graduated with Distinction in History.

She received a M.Phil. in history from Yale University and a Ph.D. from Yale.

Professor Hunter previously taught at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

She joined the Princeton faculty in the fall 2007.

She has received numerous fellowships and grants including the National Humanities Center Fellowship (2017-2018) and a Mary I. Bunting Institute fellowship from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University from (2005-2006).

end quotes

Hmmmmmm.

But how can any of that be?

I mean, let’s face it, people – she is BLACK, and in America, where we still have “systemic racism,” which exists to promote white supremacy and at the same time to “keep the black man down,” as we are continuously told by such pre-eminent and expert voices on the subject as the Right Reverend Alvin Sharpton, who knows more about the subject of “white supremacy” and “racism” than any other person, living or dead, none of that could have happened!

In a nation where “systemic racism” actually exists, a black woman like Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter would not be teaching at Princeton, nor would she have been awarded any of those numerous fellowships and grants including the National Humanities Center Fellowship (2017-2018) and a Mary I. Bunting Institute fellowship from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University from (2005-2006).

But she does teach at Princeton, and she did get those degrees along with numerous fellowships and grants including the National Humanities Center Fellowship (2017-2018) and a Mary I. Bunting Institute fellowship from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University from (2005-2006), so what does that say about the charge of “systemic racism” here in the United States of America, other than that it is a totally BULL**** charge intended by the Democrats to keep us divided as a people?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-258447

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Sun Jul 05, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 4, 2020 at 7:33 pm

Paul Plante says :

As to Democrat party racism and white supremacy well into the 20th century, again presuming that the president speaks for his party, of which he is the leader, let’s go to p.654 of The Coldest Winter by David Halberstam, where we find as follows:

Sometimes too, as he (LBJ) came close to the final decision on whether to send combat troops to Vietnam, Johnson’s racism showed in the way he spoke of the Vietnamese as being like Mexicans, the kind of lesser people you had to show some strength to before they got the message and gave you the respect you deserved.

end quotes

That of course is the pre-Civil War Democrat Party “Mudsill Theory” used to justify keeping black people as their slaves carried forward into the 1960s, because for Democrat party style “democracy” to work for them, they always need an underclass, which takes us back to David Halberstam as follows:

The Vietnamese, he would say, were not going to push Lyndon Johnson around, because he knew something about people like this, because back home he had dealt with people just like them, the Mexicans.

Now, Mexicans were alright if you let them know who was boss, but “if you didn’t watch they’ll come right into your yard and take it over if you let them.”

“And the next day they’ll be right there on your porch, barefoot and weighing one hundred and thirty pounds, and they’ll take that too.”

“But if you say to ’em right at the start, ‘Hold on, just wait a minute,’ they’ll know they were dealing with someone who’ll stand up.”

“And after that you can get along fine.”

end quotes

So, as we can clearly see, when Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter tells us in the USA TODAY article entitled “Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War” by somebody named Devon Link, listed as a Fact-Check Intern on their website, on 30 JUNE 2020 that this trope is a fallback argument used to discredit current Democratic Party policies, at the core of which is the refusal to accept the realignment of the party structure in the mid-20th century, as those of us who actually study history know, the realignment she talks about DID NOT end in any way the racist policies of the Democrat party – to the contrary, that realignment merely shifted the focus of the racism of the Democrat party off of the black folks and over onto the Mexicans and Vietnamese as second-class citizens the Democrats didn’t consider as being human, they way they didn’t consider the black folks as being human when they held them as slaves.

Which is why we have no more enduring symbol of racism and slavery in this nation than the Democrat Party of American President Lyndon Baines Johnson!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-258480

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 25700
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: NO MORE ENDURING SYMBOL HAVE WE THAN THEY!

Post by thelivyjr » Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 5, 2020 at 10:59 pm

Paul Plante says:

Continuing on with the Democrat party being the most enduring symbol of racism and slavery we have in this country, while at the same time, keeping in mind that one of the main advantages for those who work for such “main-stream” media outlets as USA TODAY or the Washington Post is the Constitutional freedom given or granted to the main-stream media, rags like USA TODAY and the Washington Post, to be able to lie with impunity, to warp, twist, bend and distort history and to practice intellectual dishonesty with impunity, let’s return for some fact-checking of our own to the USA TODAY article entitled “Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, did not start the Civil War” by somebody named Devon Link, listed as a Fact-Check Intern on their website, on 30 JUNE 2020, where we find as follows:

Abolitionists founded the Republican Party and elected President Abraham Lincoln in response to escalating tensions around slavery after the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854 threatened the balance of slave states to free states.

Southern states, primarily lead by Democrats, initiated secession proceedings and launched the Civil War.

However, historians say the party is not to blame.

“The short answer is that the Democratic Party did not start the Civil War,” Hunter said.

“The war was initiated by Southern slaveholding states seceding from the United States.”

end quotes

Except without the people who comprised the Democratic Party at that time, there was no Democratic party, so the two cannot be separated as this apologist for the Democrat Party Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter is trying to do here, and the same goes for the Southern slaveholding states.

It is in fact intellectually dishonest on the part of Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter to try and mislead us that way, which takes us to the U.S. Senate website for their take on that history, to wit:

The Civil War Senate Reacts to Secession

Declares Seats Vacant and Expels Disloyal Members

Background


In November 1860 a deeply divided nation teetered on the brink of civil war.

Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the presidential election prompted a rapid succession of dramatic events.

On November 10 James Chesnut of South Carolina became the first senator to leave the Senate to support the Confederacy.

As we have already seen, Chesnut was a member of the Democrat party at the time he left the Senate in order to be able to support the Democrat party Confederacy instead.

On December 20 South Carolina seceded from the Union.

That same day, the Senate established a “Committee of Thirteen” to examine plans to save the Union, including the proposal of Kentucky senator John J. Crittenden to extend to the Pacific the line established by the 1820 Missouri Compromise, prohibiting slavery north of the 36th parallel.

On January 9, 1861, Mississippi became the second state to secede.

This action prompted Senator Jefferson Davis to address the Senate on January 10, imploring his colleagues to allow for peaceful secession of the Southern states.

As we have already seen above, Jefferson Davis was also a member of the Democrat party at that time.

On January 21 five senators from Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi, led by Davis, bade farewell to the Senate.

Those other four senators were David Yulee and Stephen Mallory of Florida and Benjamin Fitzpatrick and Clement Clay of Alabama, all of whom were Democrats.

Staying with the actual history, as opposed to the distorted version being fed to us by USA TODAY and Princeton University Edwards Professor of American History Tera Hunter, the secession of Southern states and the withdrawal of their elected representatives forced an unprecedented constitutional crisis in Congress.

On March 14, 1861, senators debated what to do with seats left vacant by their Southern colleagues.

Some senators, such as Maine’s William Pitt Fessenden, insisted that Southern states did not have the right to withdraw from the Union.

By leaving the Senate, Fessenden argued, Southern members had effectively resigned their seats.

Others, such as Delaware’s James Bayard, believed states did have the right to secede and that seats held by Southern secessionists no longer existed.

The Senate should not declare their seats vacant but simply strike their names from the roll.

After a heated exchange, the Senate sided with Fessenden and passed a resolution declaring the seats of six of their departed colleagues “vacant” and authorizing the Secretary of the Senate to strike their names from the Senate roll.

In July the Senate debated the fate of Southern members whose terms had not expired and who had not formally notified the Senate of their withdrawal.

An intense debate followed.

Senator Milton Latham of California opposed expulsion, insisting that it reflected poorly “upon the personal character of the individual” and implied “turpitude.”

The author of the resolution, New Hampshire’s Daniel Clark , urged his colleagues to pass the resolution and “deny here, on the floor of the Senate, the right of any State to secede,” by expelling Southern members “from the councils of the nation.”

The Senate approved Clark’s resolution on July 11, 1861, expelling 10 absent members by a vote of 32-10.

Senators barred four more members for disloyalty during the course of the war.

On December 4, 1861, the Senate expelled John Breckinridge of Kentucky for taking up “arms against the Government he had sworn to support.”

John Breckinridge of Kentucky was a Democrat.

On January 10, 1862, the Senate voted unanimously to expel Missouri’s two senators, Waldo Johnson and Trusten Polk, for “sympathy with and participation in the rebellion against the Government of the United States.”

Waldo Johnson and Trusten Polk were Democrats.

On February 5, 1862, the Senate passed a resolution to expel Indiana’s Jesse Bright for disloyalty to the Union based on a letter he addressed to “His Excellency Jefferson Davis,” in which Bright introduced his acquaintance, a Texas arms dealer, to the president of the Confederacy.

Jesse Bright was a Democrat and was considered a COPPERHEAD.

In the 1860s, the Copperheads, also known as Peace Democrats, were a faction of Democrats in the Union who opposed the American Civil War and wanted an immediate peace settlement with the Confederates.

Republicans started calling anti-war Democrats “Copperheads,” framing them as poisonous as a venomous snake (the pit viper Agkistrodon contortrix).

Republican prosecutors accused some prominent Copperheads of treason in a series of trials in 1864.

Getting back to the history, we have:

A few states, such as Missouri and Kentucky, elected new members to replace those who were expelled.

The Unionist government in Virginia sent two senators to Capitol Hill.

Many desks remained unoccupied in the Senate Chamber throughout the war years and into the Reconstruction era, serving as painful reminders of the nation’s disunion.

The Senate continued to admit Southern members from reconstructed states to representation through the early 1870s.

Senate Action Against Disloyal Members, 1861-1862

Alabama

Clement Clay, Jr: Did not appear on March 14, 1861; salary paid to January 21, 1861; seat declared vacant on March 14, 1861; member of the Confederate Senate 1861-1863; was a diplomatic agent of the Confederate States; arrested and imprisoned in Fortress Monroe in 1865.

Clement Clay was a Democrat.

Benjamin Fitzpatrick: Salary paid to February 4, 1861; term expired on March 3, 1861, and Senate took no formal action against him; president of the constitutional convention of Alabama in 1865.

He was a Democrat, as well.

Arkansas

William K. Sebastian: Expelled on July 11, 1861; returned to Helena, Ark., where he resided during the Civil War and practiced law; after federal troops occupied Helena, Ark., moved to Memphis, TN., in 1864 and resumed the practice of law.

He too was a Democrat.

Charles B. Mitchel: Expelled on July 11, 1861; elected to the Confederate senate at the first session of the State legislature and served until his death in Little Rock, AR, September 20, 1864.

Yet another Democrat.

Florida

David Yulee: Withdrew on January 21, 1861; salary paid to this date; term expired on March 3, 1861, and Senate took no formal action against him; due to his support of the Confederacy, was a prisoner at Fort Pulaski in 1865; president of the Florida Railroad Company 1853-1866.

Stephen Mallory: Withdrew on January 21, 1861; seat declared vacant on March 14, 1861; salary paid to this date; Secretary of the Navy of the Confederacy; imprisoned at the close of the Civil War 1865-1866.

Both Democrats as we saw above.

Georgia

Robert A. Toombs: Withdrew on February 4, 1861; salary paid to this date; seat declared vacant on March 14, 1861; during the Civil War served in the Confederate Provisional Congress; Secretary of State of the Confederate States; brigadier general in the Confederate Army; in order to avoid arrest at the end of the Civil War, fled to Havana and then to London; returned to his home in Washington, GA., in 1867.

Alfred Iverson, Sr: Withdrew on January 28, 1861; term expired on March 3, 1861, and Senate took no formal action against him; resumed the practice of law in Columbus, Ga., until 1868, when he purchased a plantation in East Macon, GA., and engaged in agricultural pursuits until his death there on March 4, 1873.

Again, two more Democrats.

Indiana

Jesse D. Bright: Expelled on February 5, 1862 for disloyalty to the Union; unsuccessful candidate for election in 1863 to the United States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by his expulsion.

As we saw above, he was a Democrat.

Kentucky

John C. Breckinridge: Expelled on December 4, 1861, for disloyalty to the Union; entered the Confederate Army during the Civil War as brigadier general and soon became a major general; Secretary of War in the Cabinet of the Confederate States from January until April 1865.

Another Democrat.

Louisiana

Judah P. Benjamin : Withdrew on February 4, 1861; seat declared vacant on March 14, 1861; appointed Attorney General under the provisional government of the Confederate States, February 1861; appointed Acting Secretary of War of the Confederate States in August 1861 and served until November 1861, when he was appointed Secretary of War; served in this capacity until February 1862, when he resigned to accept the appointment as Secretary of State in the Cabinet of President Jefferson Davis, in which capacity he served until the end of the war.

John Slidell : Withdrew on February 4, 1861; salary paid to this date; term expired on March 3, 1861, and Senate took no formal action against him; on November 8, 1861, while on a diplomatic mission from the Confederate States to England and France, was taken from the British mail steamer Trent, sailing from Havana to England, and confined in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor; was later released and sailed for Paris.

Both Democrats.

Mississippi

Jefferson Davis: Withdrew on January 21, 1861; seat declared vacant on March 14, 1861; salary paid to this date; elected President of the Confederacy for a term of six years and inaugurated in Richmond, Va., February 22, 1862; captured by Union troops in Irwinsville, Ga., May 10, 1865; imprisoned in Fortress Monroe, indicted for treason, and was paroled in the custody of the court in 1867.

Albert G. Brown: Withdrew on January 12, 1861; salary paid to January 14, 1861; seat declared vacant on March 14, 1861; served as captain in the Confederate Army; elected a member of the Confederate Senate in 1862 and served in the First and Second Confederate Congresses.

Another pair of Democrats.

Missouri

Waldo P. Johnson: Expelled on January 10, 1862, upon rumors he aided the Confederacy; served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War; attained the rank of lieutenant colonel of the Fourth Missouri Infantry; appointed a member of the Senate of the Confederate States to fill a vacancy.

Trusten Polk : Expelled on January 10, 1862, upon rumors he aided the Confederacy; served as colonel in the Confederate Army; judge in the military courts of the department of Mississippi in 1864 and 1865.

More Democrats.

North Carolina

Thomas Bragg: Withdrew on March 8, 1861; expelled on July 11, 1861; appointed Attorney General of the Confederate States November 21, 1861, and served two years.

He was the older brother of Braxton Bragg, and he was a Democrat.

Thomas L. Clingman: Withdrew March 11, 1861; expelled on July 11, 1861; served as brigadier general in the Confederate Army.

He too was a Democrat.

South Carolina

James Chesnut, Jr. : Withdrew on November 10, 1860; salary paid to this date; expelled on July 11, 1861; served as colonel in the Confederate Army; appointed brigadier general in 1864.

James H. Hammond : Withdrew on November 11, 1860; salary paid to this date; term expired on March 3, 1861, and Senate took no formal action against him; died at “Redcliffe,” Beach Island, SC, November 13, 1864.

Both Democrats.

Tennessee

Alfred O. P. Nicholson : Withdrew on March 3, 1861; expelled on July 11, 1861; chief justice of the supreme court of Tennessee 1870-1876.

He too belonged to the Democrat party.

Texas

Louis T. Wigfall: Withdrew on March 23, 1861; expelled on July 11, 1861; served in the Confederate Army during the Civil War; represented the State of Texas in the Confederate Congress.

John Hemphill: Did not appear on March 4, 1861, for the 38th Congress; expelled on July 11, 1861; represented the state of Texas in the Congress of the Confederate States of America until his death.

Louis Trezevant Wigfall was a Democrat who was among a group of leading secessionists known as Fire-Eaters, advocating the preservation and expansion of an aristocratic agricultural society based on slave labor.

John Hemphill was also a member of the Democratic Party and one of the signatories of the Confederate States Constitution.

Virginia

James M. Mason: Withdrew on March 28, 1861; expelled on July 11, 1861; appointed commissioner of the Confederacy to Great Britain and France.

Robert M. T. Hunter: Withdrew on March 28, 1861; expelled on July 11, 1861; Confederate Secretary of State 1861-1862; served in the Confederate Senate from Virginia in the First and Second Congresses 1862-1865 and was President pro tempore on various occasions.

And they were Democrats, as well.

So, if all of those people were Democrats, then who was the Democrat Party?

Did it exist somehow separate from those who were its members?

Stay tuned, for more is yet to come on that subject.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-259158

Post Reply