This thread is a bit of a fraud, What was debunked?These people are propagandists distorting the truth
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.revisionism/HmDpquTslCI/UHJOwhurBQAJ
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This thread is a bit of a fraud, What was debunked?These people are propagandists distorting the truth
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.revisionism/HmDpquTslCI/UHJOwhurBQAJ
Which were as effective as they were intended to be.But they did take parallel steps to end slavery.
They could have done different things if they really wanted to defend 'liberty'. But no.So when you label them as hypocritical, that isn't really correct. They did the best they could with what they had.
.I understand the 14th very well and the misapplication thereafter. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?Which were as effective as they were intended to be.But they did take parallel steps to end slavery.
I find it quite hilarious how you attack the people who tried to limit slavery and give a hall pass to the ones who expanded it.They could have done different things if they really wanted to defend 'liberty'. But no.So when you label them as hypocritical, that isn't really correct. They did the best they could with what they had.
You are even worse than CNM when it comes to dishonest arguments..I understand the 14th very well and the misapplication thereafter. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.
sure you understand - they anticipated the civil war and the new amendments that ended slavery passed after the wars conclusion ...
what misapplication might that be ... bing. .
If you don’t want to believe in God, don’t.No. God. Militant atheists condemn respect for people who believe in God and attempt to subordinate their worship of God.GodSure. I can give you examples but it's a long read.About what? That it’s ok to subordinate religion?Atheists are right
Can you give examples of that please?
Oh wait - You mean like christians attacking Muslims and others who don't share their beliefs? That's what you mean, isn't it.
Yes, militant atheists condemning respect for people of faith would be exactly like that..Yes, militant atheists condemning respect for people of faith would be exactly like that.
faith in what ... explain yourself..
you mean yourself ... that's your faith, try explaining what you are saying.
Did you already say which god you're talking about?
If so, I missed it.
There are plenty to choose from and IM(atheist)O, they're all equal and should have equal rights. Would you agree with that? If so, I'm cerrtain you would also agree that atheists have those same rights.
Or if you want to believe in ten gods, go right ahead.
Seems like you think about it a lot.If you don’t want to believe in God, don’t.No. God. Militant atheists condemn respect for people who believe in God and attempt to subordinate their worship of God.GodSure. I can give you examples but it's a long read.About what? That it’s ok to subordinate religion?Atheists are right
Can you give examples of that please?
Oh wait - You mean like christians attacking Muslims and others who don't share their beliefs? That's what you mean, isn't it.
Yes, militant atheists condemning respect for people of faith would be exactly like that..Yes, militant atheists condemning respect for people of faith would be exactly like that.
faith in what ... explain yourself..
you mean yourself ... that's your faith, try explaining what you are saying.
Did you already say which god you're talking about?
If so, I missed it.
There are plenty to choose from and IM(atheist)O, they're all equal and should have equal rights. Would you agree with that? If so, I'm cerrtain you would also agree that atheists have those same rights.
Or if you want to believe in ten gods, go right ahead.
Exactly.
Just about the only time I even think about it is when the holy rollers knock on the door. My opinion is, believe in whatever cult, sect that appeals to you but I've asked you which god you're talking about and since you don't answer, I'm certain its the christian god that you bow down to.
That's fine but why must the rest of the world kow tow to "him" or you? We pay higher taxes because of christians. We pay more for TV because of christians.
(Editorial) "you" whine that you can't pray in schools which is not true at all. You can pray any place you want and no one will bother you. Let another religion put down a prayer rug though and its damn likely a christian will murder that person on the spot.
You have special days set aside - just for YOUR god. Other religions have holidays but the world doesn't close down for them and no one has to pay for their holidays.
When was the last time an atheist knocked on your door with tracts and leaflets and books and with a little old lady and child in tow? How about any other god? Do any of them harass you? Nope.
I've talked here before about working at the local homeless shelter and food bank. We've asked area christian churches to help and they always refuse. But, there are always Muslims there. Always. So, while christians say they do a lot, I've never seen it. Now here, where I live now or where I've lived before. Where are they?
They're always out there whining that they can't say merry christians which, of course, bull shit. They say they want to put christ back in christmas but what they really mean is park some idiotic bunch of statues where people can see where "the baby Jesus was born". PUH-lese. I can't remember the last time, if ever, I've known a christian that follows the teaching of Jesus. What I do see though is threads like yours - whining and demanding.
All I want is for you to stay out of schools, stay out of government and stay the fuck off my front porch but fact is, christians are always whining about their imagined persecution and they always have their hands out for more.
Like this thread attacking "militant" atheists. How many of them do you think there are? How do they harm you or other christian cults/sects? Why won't christians just mind their own business and let others do the same?
I would fight for your right to believe in and worship any god you want but I won't hold my breath waiting for a christian to do the same.
Whew.
Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?Which were as effective as they were intended to be.But they did take parallel steps to end slavery.
.Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?
It goes both ways.
I think Christians are more threatened by atheists than the other way around.
Christians fear that atheists will convince them their beliefs are unfounded.
An atheist really doesn’t care
Not sure with what that has to do with Democrats going against the wishes of the founding fathers.Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?Which were as effective as they were intended to be.But they did take parallel steps to end slavery..Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?
the sway ended with the civil war amendments, not just slavery also the contiguous states by law as the secularist founders secured the final victory for freedom and liberty.
Not sure with what that has to do with Democrats going against the wishes of the founding fathers.Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?Which were as effective as they were intended to be.But they did take parallel steps to end slavery..Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?
the sway ended with the civil war amendments, not just slavery also the contiguous states by law as the secularist founders secured the final victory for freedom and liberty.
Those secular founders that secured the victory were called Republicans and they were anything but secular.
.Those secular founders that secured the victory were called Republicans and they were anything but secular.
I understand the 14th very well and the misapplication thereafter.
Let's examine the facts....Not sure with what that has to do with Democrats going against the wishes of the founding fathers.Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?Which were as effective as they were intended to be.But they did take parallel steps to end slavery..Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?
the sway ended with the civil war amendments, not just slavery also the contiguous states by law as the secularist founders secured the final victory for freedom and liberty.
Those secular founders that secured the victory were called Republicans and they were anything but secular..Those secular founders that secured the victory were called Republicans and they were anything but secular.
to hide your shame you gloss the reality of events by selective use of semantics, the names of political parties rather than the underpinning accomplishments from one phase to another - the u s constitution document itself was written by secularist, a breach from the uninterrupted previous history of governance, not your religious zealots and the civil war amendments were the final cog in the wheel insuring liberty and freedom for "all".
I understand the 14th very well and the misapplication thereafter.
no, what you have is your tail between your legs ... try answering what the misapplication might be and by whom.
The misapplication was by SCOTUS when they applied it to anything beyond it's original intent which was granting rights to slaves that had been freed.no, what you have is your tail between your legs ... try answering what the misapplication might be and by whom.
Thank you for the opportunity to post the facts concerning the racist heritage of the Democratic Party.Not sure with what that has to do with Democrats going against the wishes of the founding fathers.Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?Which were as effective as they were intended to be.But they did take parallel steps to end slavery..Until the Democrats reversed the intentions of the Founding Fathers in the late 1820's they were damn effective. Certainly more effective than the bullshit the Democrats pulled. Do you have any understanding of history at all?
the sway ended with the civil war amendments, not just slavery also the contiguous states by law as the secularist founders secured the final victory for freedom and liberty.
Those secular founders that secured the victory were called Republicans and they were anything but secular..Those secular founders that secured the victory were called Republicans and they were anything but secular.
to hide your shame you gloss the reality of events by selective use of semantics, the names of political parties rather than the underpinning accomplishments from one phase to another - the u s constitution document itself was written by secularist, a breach from the uninterrupted previous history of governance, not your religious zealots and the civil war amendments were the final cog in the wheel insuring liberty and freedom for "all".
I understand the 14th very well and the misapplication thereafter.
no, what you have is your tail between your legs ... try answering what the misapplication might be and by whom.
Do you (cnm) have any understanding of history at all?
Let's examine the facts....
Very few people today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. That's because by the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.
Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia
16th United States Congress - Wikipedia
The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.
"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839
In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.
Fugitive Slave Act - 1850
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia
Fugitive Slave Act
31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.
The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act
Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.
(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed
What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full
And so did others.
In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.
History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia
Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com
Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium
The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS
"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”
The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
In 1856, the Democratic platform strongly defended slavery. According to the Democrats of 1856, ending slavery would be dangerous and would ruin the happiness of the people.
“All efforts of the abolitionists... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” McKee, The National...Platforms, Democratic Platform of 1856, p.91
In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights. In effect, Democrats believed slaves were property that could be disposed of at the will of its owner.
Democrats on the Court announced that "blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it." Dred Scott at 407 (1856)
Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia
The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Dred Scott Decision
Dred Scott
Dred Scott: Democratic Reaction
The Democratic Platform for 1860 supported both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The Democrats even handed out copies of the Dred Scott decision with their platform to affirm that it was proper to hold African Americans in bondage.
2. Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law.
6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
Avalon Project - Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860
The Republican platform of 1860, on the other hand, blasted both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and announced its continued intent to end slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved.
5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
Republican Party National Platform, 1860
Republicans freed the slaves, Democrats in the North and the South fought against it.
January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by U.S. House of Representatives with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat opposition.
April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support and 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.
April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens, with 100% of Democrats voting no.
June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens, where 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
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”.
Here's the rest of the history.Let's examine the facts....
Very few people today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. That's because by the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.
Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia
16th United States Congress - Wikipedia
The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.
"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839
In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.
Fugitive Slave Act - 1850
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia
Fugitive Slave Act
31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.
The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act
Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.
(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed
What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym
http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full
And so did others.
In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.
History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia
Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com
Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium
The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS
"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”
The History of Black Voting Rights [Great read!]
In 1856, the Democratic platform strongly defended slavery. According to the Democrats of 1856, ending slavery would be dangerous and would ruin the happiness of the people.
“All efforts of the abolitionists... are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people.” McKee, The National...Platforms, Democratic Platform of 1856, p.91
In 1857, a Democratically controlled Supreme Court delivered the Dred Scott decision, declaring that blacks were not persons or citizens but instead were property and therefore had no rights. In effect, Democrats believed slaves were property that could be disposed of at the will of its owner.
Democrats on the Court announced that "blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it." Dred Scott at 407 (1856)
Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia
The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Dred Scott Decision
Dred Scott
Dred Scott: Democratic Reaction
The Democratic Platform for 1860 supported both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857. The Democrats even handed out copies of the Dred Scott decision with their platform to affirm that it was proper to hold African Americans in bondage.
2. Inasmuch as difference of opinion exists in the Democratic party as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon these questions of Constitutional Law.
6. Resolved, That the enactments of the State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.
Avalon Project - Democratic Party Platform; June 18, 1860
The Republican platform of 1860, on the other hand, blasted both the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision of 1857 and announced its continued intent to end slavery and secure equal civil rights for black Americans.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the Union of the states, must and shall be preserved.
5. That the present Democratic Administration has far exceeded our worst apprehension in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as is especially evident in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas - in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons - in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest, and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power entrusted to it by a confiding people.
7. That the new dogma that the Constitution of its own force carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent, is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no "person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent re-opening of the African Slave Trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity, and a burning shame to our country and age, and we call upon congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
10. That in the recent vetoes by the federal governors of the acts of the Legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted democratic principle of non- intervention and popular sovereignty, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
Republican Party National Platform, 1860
Republicans freed the slaves, Democrats in the North and the South fought against it.
January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery was passed by U.S. House of Representatives with unanimous Republican support and intense Democrat opposition.
April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support and 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.
April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law.
May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens, with 100% of Democrats voting no.
June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes the Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens, where 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no.
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”.
THE most important post ever seen on these message boards. It should be required reading for every high school student and every Democrat in America.