AMERICA 1860One party was responsible for the end of slavery in America. No it wasn't the Democrats. It was an extreme right wing group known as the Radical Republicans. Today you hear the liberal left, blacks and others who try to rewrite history blame the Republicans and the Founding Fathers for keeping the blacks enslaved in America. They even quote proof as in the 'three-fifths clause' than was written in the Constitution. The blacks in America can't seem to grasp that it was mostly the democrat party who keep slavery alive and well in America. For 100 years after the civil war the south was solid Democrat in every election. Then to seal their cover up of the truth at the end, LBJ jumps in and signs in the Civil Rights law and then boast how the Democrat Party finally set you free. But though before 1965 they fought tooth and nail to keep you enslaved.
It was a Republican (Abraham Lincoln) who freed the slaves. Civil rights leaders Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr. were also Republicans. It was the Democrats who supported southern slave-owners and the KKK after the Civil War. This partnership was still going strong in the 1960’s when Democrats and the Klan worked hand in hand, such as their relationship with Governor George Wallace (D-AL) and others. This relationship with the Democrats allowed Klan members to kill blacks, bomb churches, lynchings, etc. with impunity. Democrats favored segregation, “separate but equal” as it was called. They favored “Jim Crow” laws and heartily fought civil rights reforms.
Slavery was started in America nearly two centuries before the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Even though it is written that "all men are created equal," it is currently charged that in the Constitution, the Founders considered a black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another misrepresentation of the truth. The three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision.
The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Democrats in the southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. The Founding Fathers were responsible for starting the Anti-slavery movement in America.
Slavery was started in America nearly two centuries before the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Even though it is written that "all men are created equal," it is currently charged that in the Constitution, the Founders considered a black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another misrepresentation of the truth. The three-fifths clause was actually an antislavery provision.
The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; it was an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Democrats in the southern states were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. The Founding Fathers were responsible for starting the Anti-slavery movement in America.
3 comments:
Approvingly your article helped me very much in my college assignment. Hats off to you send, wish look forward in the direction of more interrelated articles soon as its one of my pet question to read.
May I point out that slavery of itself is not a bad thing, b4 you completely ignore me, hear me out. I believe everyone should be equal and hav equal rights but if you look back in the Bible, God doesn't disapprove of slavery. I will tell you why. The first reason is that I am not talking about Nationalized or "Racialized" slavery, where a specific type of people are seen as lower than another due to some characterization or human trait. the second reason, is that throughout the Old testament times every person who could afford it had slaves, these slaves were aquired by either those who could not pay their debts or sold themselves to be slaves. These are the slaves that I am talking about(Abraham had slaves; Gen. 12:16, Gen. 21:10, Joseph was a slave; Gen. 37:28). Even in the New testament there are slaves like Onesimus (Phil. 1:15-16). In all these God never rebuked anyone for having a slave or being a slave.
And we are all slaves to sin (in and of ourselves, in which Jesus is the only way of salvation). So overall, I am not saying that the slavery of any specific nationality, chacteristic or human trait is acceptable, but rather slavery for reasons of finance. Just a thought but think about it, it gives those that are bankrupt, jobs, I gives responsibility for overspending. However that is just my thought. My point for this comment is to ditinguish between slavery of appearance, slavery of finance and slavery of the soul. this is not really intended for a comment on above, but rather an addition to better clarify "slavery" in the blog.
You are right JustOne, but what you say isn't taught in our Government School System.
Post a Comment