Fact: Only Democrats owned slaves in America

[Danoh]

ACTUAL Fact:

Actually, the freeing the slaves issue was nothing more than the same old, same old, two-fold economic issue "the Right" continues to bleat about to this very day.

With every new State that was formed, political leadership in the Northern states began to fear the South would come to completlely dominate US politics.

And by that, be easily able continue to expand slavery into these newer states.

And through that, further and further cut off job opportunities for white workers (who would have to be paid for their labor).

Nothern leaders also feared that a continued expansion of free labor (slavery) would eventually render the North basically unable to compete with the South, economically.

The issue was economic, not moral.

Over one hundred years of the many basic rights denied African-Americans after Slavery was over should tell anyone but the most willfully self-decieved that freeing the slaves had not been about some great moral sense of benevolence on the part of the Republicans.

The issue had been one of economics.

But there is a bliss to ignorance.

For those not so inclined to such bliss, look into themes like following...

Northern fear of the Kansas-Nebraska Act will only result in the "Slave Power" South coming to dominate the US.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...kansas-nebraska-act-and-the-republican-party/

 

[jgarden]

Only Democrats owned slaves in America

Given that those who brought slaves from Africa to the Americas were "white," male entrepreneurs who didn't want governments interfering in their lucrative business, doesn't that description of slave traders also characterize most members of the Republican Party!

 

[fool]

Yes, those Republicans were really something...over a hundred and fifty years ago. lain:

But just to be a contrarian, Grant, Republican president and general extraordinaire, owned at least one slave until the passing of the 13th Amendment. You think he was the only one? :think:

He freed William in 1859.
https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/did-ulysses-s-grant-own-slaves-during-the-civil-war/

 

[fool]

Only Democrats owned slaves in America

Given that those who brought slaves from Africa to the Americas were "white," male entrepreneurs

https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

A free black in Trimble County, Kentucky, " … sold his own son and daughter South, one for $1,000, the other for $1,200." … A Maryland father sold his slave children in order to purchase his wife. A Columbus, Georgia, black woman — Dilsey Pope — owned her husband. "He offended her in some way and she sold him … " Fanny Canady of Louisville, Kentucky, owned her husband Jim — a drunken cobbler — whom she threatened to "sell down the river." At New Bern, North Carolina, a free black wife and son purchased their slave husband-father. When the newly bought father criticized his son, the son sold him to a slave trader. The son boasted afterward that "the old man had gone to the corn fields about New Orleans where they might learn him some manners."

 

[ok doser]

He freed William in 1859.
https://pastexplore.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/did-ulysses-s-grant-own-slaves-during-the-civil-war/

and didn't vote for Lincoln in 1860

 

[genuineoriginal]

ACTUAL Fact:

Actually, the freeing the slaves issue was nothing more than the same old, same old, two-fold economic issue "the Right" continues to bleat about to this very day.

With every new State that was formed, political leadership in the Northern states began to fear the South would come to completlely dominate US politics.

And by that, be easily able continue to expand slavery into these newer states.

And through that, further and further cut off job opportunities for white workers (who would have to be paid for their labor).

Nothern leaders also feared that a continued expansion of free labor (slavery) would eventually render the North basically unable to compete with the South, economically.

The issue was economic, not moral.

Over one hundred years of the many basic rights denied African-Americans after Slavery was over should tell anyone but the most willfully self-decieved that freeing the slaves had not been about some great moral sense of benevolence on the part of the Republicans.

The issue had been one of economics.

But there is a bliss to ignorance.

For those not so inclined to such bliss, look into themes like following...

Northern fear of the Kansas-Nebraska Act will only result in the "Slave Power" South coming to dominate the US.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...kansas-nebraska-act-and-the-republican-party/

The fact is that Democrats in the north and the south supported slavery and Republicans opposed slavery.

 

[The Barbarian]

Dinesh D'Souza already pointed out that Grant was a Democrat when he inherited the slave

Turns out, he lied about that, too. From Grant's own statement, when he freed a slave:

“I Ulysses S Grant of the City and County of St. Louis in the State of Missouri, for diverse good and valuable considerations me hereunto moving, do hereby emancipate and set free from Slavery my negro man William, sometimes called William Jones(Jones)of Mullatto complexion, aged about thirty-five years, and about five feet seven inches in height and being the same slave purchased by me of Frederick Dent-And I do hereby manumit, emancipate & set free said William from slavery forever.”
https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact is that Democrats in the north and the south supported slavery and Republicans opposed slavery.

Things have changed, it seems...

Donald Trump appears to have high levels of support among the nation’s intolerant population, according to a New York Times deep dive into polling data.

The Times found that nearly 20% of Trump supporters did not approve of freeing the slaves, according to a January YouGov/Economist poll that asked respondents if they supported or disapproved of “the executive order that freed all slaves in the states that were in rebellion against the federal government”—Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.
http://time.com/4236640/donald-trump-racist-supporters/

Fewer than Hillary said, but still a remarkably high number. Let a hundred and fifty years pass, and we see the parties switch positions.

 

[The Barbarian]

In New England, the Federalist party was closely linked to the Congregational church. When the party collapsed, the church was disestablished.[21] In 1800 and other elections, the Federalists targeted infidelity in any form. They repeatedly charged that Republican candidates, especially Jefferson, were atheistic or nonreligious. Conversely, the Baptists, Methodists and other dissenters as well as the religiously nonaligned favored the Republican cause. Jefferson told the Baptists of Connecticut there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

And of course, Jefferson owned slaves.

 

[ok doser]

All this garbage about racist Democrats in the 18th century....

the civil war wasn't in the 18th century

Not all Republicans are racists , but most of the racists in America are Republicans .

it's been shown time and again that racism exists across party lines

unsurprisingly, the leftist media prefers to cover that racism which emanates from the right

And Donald Trump is our racist-in-chief , the one who says there are some very fine people among the white supremacist groups

there probably are

, calls Mexicans "rapists "

are you arguing that not a single Mexican is a rapist? :freak:

 

[The Barbarian]

And Donald Trump is our racist-in-chief , the one who says there are some very fine people among the white supremacist groups, calls Mexicans "rapists "

are you arguing that not a single Mexican is a rapist? :freak:

So you're good with people calling republicans rapists?

 

[rexlunae]

ACTUAL Fact:

Actually, the freeing the slaves issue was nothing more than the same old, same old, two-fold economic issue "the Right" continues to bleat about to this very day.

With every new State that was formed, political leadership in the Northern states began to fear the South would come to completlely dominate US politics.

And by that, be easily able continue to expand slavery into these newer states.

And through that, further and further cut off job opportunities for white workers (who would have to be paid for their labor).

Nothern leaders also feared that a continued expansion of free labor (slavery) would eventually render the North basically unable to compete with the South, economically.

The issue was economic, not moral.

Over one hundred years of the many basic rights denied African-Americans after Slavery was over should tell anyone but the most willfully self-decieved that freeing the slaves had not been about some great moral sense of benevolence on the part of the Republicans.

The issue had been one of economics.

But there is a bliss to ignorance.

For those not so inclined to such bliss, look into themes like following...

Northern fear of the Kansas-Nebraska Act will only result in the "Slave Power" South coming to dominate the US.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...kansas-nebraska-act-and-the-republican-party/

Kinda misses an important point, doesn't it?

Why did the north ban slavery at all? If the consideration were strictly an economic one, and they were worried that they would be rendered uncompetative by free labor, they could simply have legalized slavery for themselves.

There was always a moral aspect to the abolitionists. It's true, some of the concerns we're economic, but not all.

 

[rexlunae]

The fact is that Democrats in the north and the south supported slavery and Republicans opposed slavery.

That is generally true, and what of it? Are you suggesting that it is the same today? That the defenders of the old Confederacy are still Democrats? And it's critics are Republicans?

 

[Town Heretic]

...I pointed out that that was true, but that occurred at a time when Ulysses H. Grant was a Democrat."

On the whole I'm wondering what the point of the consideration is given the time and distinctions between Lincoln's party and the group we have today. It seems a bit like suggesting that because my great great grandfather was a slave owner or an abolitionist it has meaning in terms of how my family should be seen today...which is an irrational position to take. And if it isn't that, what the devil is it? :idunno:

Before Charlottesville, Democrats voted for racist policies for more than 100 years

Okay, supra. What's the answer to the question?

The fact is that Democrats in the north and the south supported slavery and Republicans opposed slavery.

Until the party abandoned that and they went over to the Republicans. Sure.

Seriously, what's the point?

 

[ok doser]

So you're good with people calling republicans rapists?

i'm fine with it if it followed the same form as trump's statement: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”


unfortunately, many of the retarded left heard: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists, every single one of them. And some, I assume, are good people.”

 

[ok doser]

Kinda misses an important point, doesn't it?

Why did the north ban slavery at all? If the consideration were strictly an economic one, and they were worried that they would be rendered uncompetative by free labor, they could simply have legalized slavery for themselves.

There was always a moral aspect to the abolitionists. It's true, some of the concerns we're economic, but not all.

many of the abolitionists (and lincoln himself) didn't want the freed slaves to stay in America

 

[rexlunae]

many of the abolitionists (and lincoln himself) didn't want the freed slaves to stay in America

Sure. And yet, they passed the Fourteenth Amendment which ensured that they had a right to citizenship.

 

[genuineoriginal]

That is generally true, and what of it? Are you suggesting that it is the same today? That the defenders of the old Confederacy are still Democrats? And it's critics are Republicans?

History shows that the Democrats are responsible for most (if not all) of the racist legislation in the last 160 years and Republicans were responsible for most of the anti-racist legislation in the same period.
Democrats are the racists

 

[genuineoriginal]

On the whole I'm wondering what the point of the consideration is given the time and distinctions between Lincoln's party and the group we have today. It seems a bit like suggesting that because my great great grandfather was a slave owner or an abolitionist it has meaning in terms of how my family should be seen today...which is an irrational position to take. And if it isn't that, what the devil is it? :idunno:



Okay, supra. What's the answer to the question?


Until the party abandoned that and they went over to the Republicans. Sure.

Seriously, what's the point?

Republicans have not changed from anti-racists into racists even though Democrats love to make that false claim.

 

[ok doser]

History shows that the Democrats are responsible for most (if not all) of the racist legislation in the last 160 years and Republicans were responsible for most of the anti-racist legislation in the same period.
Democrats are the racists

the fact of the matter is, the Democratic party has its roots in oppression and the republican party has its roots in fighting that oppression

have they both evolved over the years?

of course

have they flipped positions, as the retarded left loves to claim?

nope

the democrats are still the party of oppression, by promoting forced social change that too often is ineffective or has serious unintended and unforeseen social consequences

which really isn't surprising, seeing as how the left is, on average, dumber than a cage full of retarded monkeys