‘Trump said Tuesday that he has ordered his attorneys to conduct a review of Smithsonian museums, calling their portrayal of U.S. history too negative and focused too much on “how bad Slavery was.”
[…]
NBC News found in May that at least 32 artifacts once on display at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History and Culture on the National Mall were removed, prompting questions from historical leaders. One artifact included a book belonging to Harriet Tubman, which was filled with hymns she was believed to have sung when leading enslaved people to freedom.’
For the record, slavery was bad – but the Trump regime wants to whitewash that fact, another example of Trump’s racism and dishonesty.
Here are some hard cold facts about slavery that the Smithsonian, or your local public schools, or your local Legacy media outlets will never tell the public because the Democrat party owns them all.
1. Most slaves in Africa were NOT sent to America.
Henry Louis Gates Jr. reveals the shocking truth about how many Africans were kidnapped from their homelands–and how many made it to the USA.
www.abhmuseum.org
Perhaps you, like me, were raised essentially to think of the slave experience primarily in terms of our black ancestors here in the United States. In other words, slavery was primarily about us, right, from Crispus Attucks and Phillis Wheatley, Benjamin Banneker and Richard Allen, all the way to Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass. Think of this as an instance of what we might think of as African-American exceptionalism. (In other words, if it’s in “the black Experience,” it’s got to be about black Americans.) Well, think again.
The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson.
Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.
So, why then were there so many more slaves in America? Simple, in America slaves were allowed to have families as where in the other countries they were shipped, they were not allowed to have families and reproduce. They simply worked them the entire lives until they died, thus making the American slave experience preferable.
2. George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers, refused to sign the Constitution because it did not provide the citizenry with natural rights, that were later included in the Bill of Rights.
Mason wrote Virginia’s Declaration of Rights. The influence of this document is hard to overstate. Thomas Jefferson referenced Mason’s Declaration of Rights just a few months later when writing the Declaration of Independence. The most notable line, “all men are born free and equally independent,” was one of many ideas his friend Jefferson would paraphrase while creating the Founding Document of the United States.
George Mason was an important, albeit reluctant, Founding Father. He was held in the highest esteem by many of the most important Founders and his contributions force the creation of the Bill of Rights. But he left the Constitutional Convention without signing the famous document
www.founderoftheday.com
In an entire world sold on slavery, Mason dared question the notion of slavery altogether and warned his peers of the consequences of not setting slaves free in America that would later come back to haunt the nation. You will also not be taught that the later addition of the Bill of Rights is really why slavery was doomed to fail in the US, making it the first country in the world to outlaw the practice. No, all you will be taught is that the Constitution somehow codified slavery, which is an absolute lie.
3. Thomas Jefferson wanted to free the slaves in the Declaration of Independence but was pressured to take it out.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE DEBATE OVER SLAVERY When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, it initiated the most intense debate among the delegates gathered at Philadelphia in the spring and early summer of 1776...
www.blackpast.org
When Thomas Jefferson included a passage attacking slavery in his draft of the Declaration of Independence, it initiated the most intense debate among the delegates gathered at Philadelphia in the spring and early summer of 1776. Jefferson’s passage on slavery was the most important section removed from the final document. As a compromise, it was replaced with a more ambiguous passage about King George’s incitement of “domestic insurrections among us.” Decades later Jefferson blamed the removal of the passage on delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Jefferson’s original passage on slavery appears below.
You will not be taught this about Jefferson. No, all you will hear is that he owned slaves and had children with a slave.
3. The country was divided over the slavery issue, that is, among whites. Now, this is an obvious fact, one that is somehow still overlooked by pretty much everyone. It is so obvious, I won't even bother to add a link. No, the entire country was not as systemically racist as we are led to believe by the Democrat party, was it?. In fact, the Civil war was the bloodiest war in American history, dividing brother against brother, and all in an effort to free the slaves. Slavery was such a dividing issue before the war, that a state could not be added to the nation in fear that it would tilt the free verses slave state balance in Congress. That meant that if a free slave state was added to the Union, it must be followed by a slave state added to the Union, and vice versa. But no, you will just be taught, or it will be implied, that conservative white Christian men were really the sole reason slavery even existed in the world, and they are the same ones that want to return to it.
4. Speaking of the democrat party, they were the party of slavery before and during and after the Civil war. Again, a fact no one disputes, yet today we are led to believe that group somehow switched parties all of a sudden under the cover of night to the GOP.
This table is based on information drawn from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Within each Congress, Representatives and Senators are listed in alphabetical order.
history.house.gov
However, blacks elected to Congress started in 1935
In fact, the first Blacks elected to Congress were Republicans, the first being Jefferson Franklin Long in 1869. You then had 45 straight Republicans added to Congress via the Republican party. When did it change and why? It changed in 1935, although you will be led to believe by the Democrat party that it changed because of LBJ's Civil Rights legislation in the 1960's, and the GOP's "Southern strategy". What was the Southern strategy other than a myth? The Southern strategy refers to a political strategy employed by the GOP, particularly from the 1960's onward. It aimed to increase support among white voters in the South by applealing to racial tensions and conservative values, often through endorsements of racial segregation and discrimination against Black voters. This strategy was a response to the democrat party's strong embrace of Civil Rights during the 1960s which alienated many white conservative voters.
But the truth of the matter was that the first Black elected to Congress who was a democrat was in 1935 by the name of Arther Wergs Mitchell. But that is not all, the next 41 Blacks elected to Congress were democrats and non-Republican, making the Southern strategy complete and utter nonsense. So, what happened in 1935? Jim Crow is what happened.
What is Jim Crow?
Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former
Confederate States of America and in some others, beginning in the 1870s. Jim Crow laws were upheld in 1896 in the case of
Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the
Supreme Court laid out its "
separate but equal" legal doctrine concerning facilities for African Americans.
Public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South after the
Civil War in 1861–1865. Companion laws excluded almost all African Americans from the vote in the South and deprived them of any representative government.
To escape Jim Crow, Blacks flocked to the big cities, especially ones not in the Deep South which were run by democrats.
However, the democrat party became the party of big government in big cities. And as we see today that is the case as every major city in America has a democrat mayor, even in "Red States". This transition occurred around the 1930's.
5. The Democrat party not only came up with Jim Crow laws, they started the KKK, but democrats vehemently deny this fact.
During a June 7th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on white supremacy and domestic terrorism, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz stated that: the Ku Klux Klan “was formed by elected Democrats.” Klan…
www.justfactsdaily.com
During a June 7th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on white supremacy and domestic terrorism, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
stated that:
- the Ku Klux Klan “was formed by elected Democrats.”
- Klan “leadership was almost entirely elected Democrats.”
- today’s Democrats “try very hard to erase the history” of their party’s involvement with the Klan.
- today’s Democrats “politicize acts of violence.”
Conversely, “fact checkers” like
PolitiFact and the
Associated Press have
repeatedly argued that the Democratic Party did not found the Klan, played a limited role in it, and that racist southerners fled to the Republican Party after 1964. Again, Blacks elected to Congress started in 1935, and not 1965 like Democrats wish you to believe.
In reality, Cruz’s statements are a much closer reflection of the facts.
Origins & Leadership
The AP and PolitiFact correctly state that the Klan was started by a group of Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tennessee as a non-violent, grassroots social club without political motivations.
What the AP and PolitiFact fail to acknowledge is that the Klan’s 1865–66 founding as a social club does not mark the beginning of the Klan as it is known today. Per the 1971 academic book
White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, the “real beginning” of the “Ku Klux conspiracy” occurred at an 1867
meeting in Nashville that consolidated the Klan.
As explained by an
1884 book written by a founding
member of the Klan, this meeting bound the “isolated dens together” with “unity of purpose and concert of action” to supposedly reign in rogue Klansmen that had turned violent toward black people just a year after the group’s founding. However,
White Terror points out that if Klan leaders really wanted to eliminate violence, they would have disbanded altogether. Instead, they sought “tighter organization” and recruited leaders “of far greater prestige and authority whose influence extended throughout the state”—primarily ex-Confederate generals and Democratic politicians.
An
investigation published by the Illinois General Assembly in 1976 explains that after the Klan “transformed into a political organization,” violence became more widespread under Democrat leadership. The men that guided the Klan’s reorganization and subsequent growth included:
However, the Illinois
investigation also found that “central control over the actions of the various local Klan groups did not really exist,” and some of the figureheads above began “dropping out” to distance themselves from local terrorism. For example,
Nathan Bedford Forest ordered the Klan disbanded in 1869 because he claimed a “few disobedient and bad men” had infiltrated the Klan, disgracing its “good name and honorable reputation.”
On the other hand, some prominent Democrats remained loyal to the Klan’s violent activities. For example,
Fredrick Strudwick led a Klan attempt to assassinate a Republican state senator and was later elected as a Democrat to the North Carolina state legislature.
Likewise, the
Red Shirts—a “paramilitary extension” of the Democratic Party and essentially the “Klan in a different uniform”—
attacked a black militia in 1867 for refusing to surrender their guns to the leader of another militia that “had no legal right” to the weaponry. One participating Red Shirt leader named “Pitchfork”
Ben Tillman became the Democratic Governor of South Carolina and a U.S. Senator. He recalled what became known as the
Hamburg Massacre (in Edgefield county) with pride:
- White men in Edgefield planned “to seize upon the first opportunity” to “provoke a riot and teach the Negroes a lesson” because they believed that “nothing but bloodshed and a good deal of it” could succeed in “redeeming the state from negro and carpet bag rule.”
- The goal “of our visit to Hamburg was to strike terror,” and “seven dead negros lying stark and stiff, certainly had its effect.”
- The massacred black people were “offered up as a sacrifice to the fanatical teachings and fiendish hate of those who sought to substitute the rule of the African for that of the Caucasian in South Carolina.”
The
AP reports that “many” Democrats joined the Klan, and
PolitiFact reports “some” did and that Nathan Forest spoke at a Democratic National Convention, but this is the extent of their admissions of Democrats’ membership in the Klan.
Media Whitewashing
Even though some individual Democrats denounced the violence of the Klan, Democratic politicians and their media allies consistently covered up for it.
A
2011 paper in
The Journal of Southern History explains that Democratic newspapers published “blanket denials” of the Klan’s existence “during and after its most active period of violence.” This is exemplified by the New York Tribune’s
criticism of Democratic papers in 1868 for dismissing the Klan as a “mythical maggot of distempered Republican brains.” Democratic politicians followed suit, including:
- Democratic Governor Robert Lindsay, who testified before Congress in 1871 that “reported outrages by Ku-Klux or disguised persons had ceased for the last two years” in Alabama.
- former Democratic Governor John Stevenson who claimed in 1871 that there was “no evidence” of “any secret political organization” in Kentucky.
Such denials were pervasive throughout the Democratic Party and media. As documented by
White Terror:
- “Most Democrats asserted that no regular or continuing Ku Klux organization existed in their counties, or in the state,” and they “denied even more vehemently that the disguised bands were politically motivated.”
- “Few Democrats were willing to admit the Klan’s political character and purpose.”
- “The Democratic press in Louisiana played its familiar role as Klan apologist.”
- “Democratic newspapers continued to ignore violence more than they condemned it.”
- The “only native whites who stood out in significant numbers against the Klan” were Republicans.
In 1871, a Congressional committee exposed the Klan’s mass terror and called for federal intervention in the South. Congressional Democrats pushed back, issuing their
own report which stated that:
- it is “folly and madness” to claim that “any country can prosper where the Anglo-Saxon is made politically subordinate to the African.”
- government cannot “long exist ‘half black and half white.’ ”
- the disguised men perpetrating violence in the South do not “have any general organization, or any political significance” and their conduct is not “indorsed by any respectable number” of white people.
“Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party”
In direct contrast to the claims of Democratic politicians and the media that the Klan had no “political significance,” Klansmen used violence and intimidation to serve the interests of the Democratic party.
For example, a black resident of Alabama named Robert Fullerlove
testified before Congress (along with other Klan victims) that Klansmen interrogated black people about their political beliefs and promised to leave them alone if they “would come over to the democratic side.”
The Klan also made frequent death threats to Republican speakers and officials. One Republican state official
testified that the “sheriff and clerk, to save their lives, have declared themselves democrats.”
One
Democrat from South Carolina testified that members of the Democrat Party in Abbeville County:
- were organized into clubs which appointed secret “committees.”
- ordered these committees to seize and destroy Republican ballots by force prior to the election.
- prevented about four hundred blacks from voting Republican at the Greenwood polling precinct.
- generally understood that Republican speakers should be shot, killed, or stopped from speaking.
- were “nearly all” part of the Ku Klux Klan.
White Terror—which contains over 1,000 footnotes—summarizes the Democratic Party’s involvement with the Klan as follows:
- “The Klan became in effect a terrorist arm of the Democratic party, whether the party leaders as a whole liked it or not.”
- “Nearly all members” viewed the Klan “as a secret political society in behalf of the Democratic party.”
- The “Klan itself was universally regarded as a Democratic political device.”
- Some activities were “obviously and almost exclusively political,” and the Klan “systematically” terrorized “Republicans of both races.”
PolitiFact quotes one historian who stated that some Klans were a “strong arm” for local elected Democrats, and the
AP’s choice historian reports that the Klan did not “have ideological motives until later.” Once again, these gentle nods to reality downplay the full extent of the Klan’s political activities.
5. The Democrat party did not bring us the Civil Rights movement.
PolitiFact also uses an unsupported claim from a history professor to spread the
common canard that racist southerners fled “into the Republican party” after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed. This claim is belied by the facts that:
- 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as compared to only 65% of Democrats, giving racist Democrats no reason to switch parties.
- 20 of the 21 Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 remained in the Democratic Party for their entire congressional careers.
- the main demographic of southerners who supported segregation, namely whites who lived in poor areas with large black populations, continued to vote for Democrats at about the same rates.
- Republicans won 44% of Southern electoral votes in 1956, about the same as the 45% they won in 1968 after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- the portion of white Southerners who said they would be willing to vote for a black president increased from 8% in 1958 to 95% in 1999.
The long-term shift of Southern voters to the Republican Party actually
correlates with massive declines in racism, growing prosperity, Democratic opposition to gun rights, and Democratic support of abortion up to birth.
PolitiFact emphasizes that “context matters” because the “anti-black Democratic Party” of yesterday is not the party of today. Yet,
Senator Cruz is correct that modern Democrats are still sowing racial divisions for political gain, such as:
6. There are more slaves today than at any other time in human history, this despite the Civil Rights act and slavery being illegal pretty much around the world, proving once and for all that government is not really concerned about it. Instead, they virtue signal about slavey from the past we can do nothing about that occurred hundreds of years ago.
In his excellent book The Thomas Sowell Reader, which I recommend very highly, Thomas Sowell provides some insightful commentary about slavery in the chapter titled “Twisted History”: Of all the tragic facts about the history...
www.aei.org
All you will hear from the DNC is that Reparations will right the wrongs of slavery. No, as Kamala Harris once admitted, any given number of Reparations will not right the wrongs of slavery as more will be needed later. The goal is never ending handouts to Blacks in the form of Reparations, in order to secure never ending votes.
Blacks are sold the myth that giving them money will end the Black Plight of poverty, followed by Affirmative Action policies which mandate Blacks get special treatment in terms of finding jobs and getting an education, which is again wrong. The truth of the matter is, Blacks have a culture of poverty due to the fact that about 70% of Black households are without a male parent and run by single mothers.
There is an alarming rate of homes without fathers in the past years.
www.go-beyond.biz
Give as many handouts to Black as you like, but the bottom line is that the Black families will not be able to escape poverty when their family is run by only a single parent who will more than likely be uneducated, or at best, a high school education. In addition, children will find their father figure on the streets, adding to the likelihood that they will head down the path of crime. The reality is, government is paying for this with just enough government money given to Black single mothers to survive. The mothers, along with the parents, are no longer concerned about not being able to survive having children out of wedlock so they let it continue.
I guarantee this will not be discussed at places like the Smithsonian or at your local public school, ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
