Government

This Is How an ‘Anti-Slavery Crusade’ Led to the Creation of the Republican Party

CNN Explains How Anti Slavery Movement Formed the Republican Party

President Abe Lincoln (Photo Credit: FILE)

In was in the 1800s that the modern-day Republican Party’s roots were set. In analyzing the movement’s history, a fact that is sometimes overlooked is that anti-slavery sentiment and the overarching battle to extinguish the institution were at the center of the so-called Grand Old Party’s (GOP) platform.

In fact, it was this epic battle — one that threatened to split the United States of America into two parts — that very literally led to the political party’s formation.

Over the weekend, CNN’s Tom Foreman delved into the GOP’s unique history, providing a brief recap of how it all took form:

In the tumultuous mid-1800s, right before the Civil War, some political activists were concerned about keeping slavery from spreading into new western territories, and they saw no way to stop it through existing political powers: the Democrats and the Whigs (the pro-Congress party of the mid 1800s that largely destroyed itself in the 1852 elections in a battle over slavery).

So they formed a new party, taking the name “Republicans” in a salute to earlier American politicians.

By 1861, they had their first president: Abraham Lincoln. Soon after, slavery fell. The Whig party disappeared. And the Republicans began a long steady rise in power.

“The modern Republican Party absolutely owes its origin to the fight over slavery,“ Foreman proclaims in a ”CNN Explains” video piece. The correspondent also goes on to discuss the issues addressed by the GOP of the 1800s and the Republican Party of today.

Many of the stances that are embraced by contemporary party-affiliated politicians mirror the positions that were taken during the party’s period of inception. Foreman notes that immigration, religion, fiscal restraint and the need for an environment that is business-friendly were all embraced by the GOP in the mid-to-late 1800s.

When it comes to regional voting patterns, Foreman claims there may also be some similarities. ”Their voting base was largely in rural areas and the west,” he explains, going on to say that this phenomenon is still somewhat true of today’s electorate.

Watch Foreman describe these elements, with a focus upon how an “anti-slavery crusade” helped to form the party, below:

(H/T: CNN)

Comments (126)

1 2
  • martyinhagerstown
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:44am

    On the topic of slavery – read newspaper stories from that time period in support of slavery and then substitute the word abortion for slavery and prolife for abolitionists – you will find the political positions in those stories eerily familiar to what is in today’s newspaper almost word for word except that the vocabulary in 1860 larger.

    You won’t have to reach to come to this same conclusion. Try it and prove me wrong.

    Report Post »  
    • turkey13
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:05am

      This article is correct! Until the government changed the laws I used to have children – Black & White selling news paper subscriptions. Most of the kids were 12 to 15. One day in the summer we were heading to another town nearby and one of the black girls mentioned that Lincoln was her hero. I told her he was a Republican and she called me a lier. The next I printed of an article off the internet and proved iot to her. All these kids wantedm botteled water instead of soda pop and I had them read the label, the water was from the Ft. Worth water resevior.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:08am

      “The modern Republican Party absolutely owes its origin to the fight over slavery,“ Only thing sadder than selective reports, is selective history. Leaving out the need to provide cheap labor for the industries in the North and cripple the south’s economy makes the anti-slavery stance seem a lot more noble than it was.

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:12pm

      The only thing lower than selective history is totally making up BS and passing it off as history. Too bad it‘s the only thing the Democrats can do because MUCH LIKE OBAMA THEY TO CAN’T RUN ON THEIR RECORD…..SO IT’S MAKE UP CRAP AND PROJECT OUR EVIL ON THE REPUBLICAN

      Report Post »  
    • Jaycen
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:44pm

      @JRook

      Except that’s your revision of the reality.

      Freeing slaves meant more people available to the PAID LABOR FORCE. I suppose what you meant to say JRook, is that you prefer slavery to paid labor.

      The other side effect of freeing slaves is that it crippled an agrarian system built on a dehumanizing system of slavery and oppression.

      So, I suppose the other thing you MEANT to say is that you are for the dehumanization and oppression of people who don’t look like you.

      Your bigotry and antiquated ideology are disgusting, JRook, but I shouldn’t be surprised as it comes from a Progressive Socialist.

      Report Post » Jaycen  
  • Tex Expatriate
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:24am

    Well, now, the author of this piece is delusional, but can be forgiven because the lie about the north making war on the south because of slavery has been perpetrated for 157 years. The war was about economics and strong central government: The Republicans were not about to let the south leave the so-called Union because most of the Federal budget came from the south. Equally as important, the Federal States’ supporters believed in a strong central national government and believed they had the right to crush the southernors who left the Union for liberty and Independence. Don’t believe it? When Lincoln “emancipated” southern slaves, over which he had no legal authority, he did not “emancipate” northern slaves. The fact is, Lincoln used the abolition movement to further his own grandiose, illegal, and unconstitutional belief in a strong Federal government. He was of Obama’s un-American stripe.

    Report Post »  
    • watersRpeople
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:31am

      I wonder how many Republicans back then in the Civil War era just wanted to release blacks from slavery for the same reason many modern Republicans want illegals to keep coming to the U.S for cheap labor? I’m sure there was enough.

      Report Post »  
    • Sirfoldallot
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:36am

      Black lib’s r still in the river of Deniel

      Report Post » Sirfoldallot  
    • neidermeyer
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:52am

      TEX EXPATRIATE is 100% right ,, the war was over the south being abused by the more powerful north regarding taxes that punished the south that had to import more finished goods and exported more raw materials. Slavery although important enough to get Lincoln elected was not the cause of the war… The emancipation proclamation came later… Slavery would have ended within a few years because of simple economics and the invention of labor saving machinery… but to this day we are burdened by the terrible victory of the imperial federal government and their ever growing claims on our wealth and the death of states rights.

      Report Post » neidermeyer  
    • pdw
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:55am

      Democrats during Lincoln’s time who were against slavery did become Republicans as the democrat party members supported themselves on the monies make from slavery.

      Report Post »  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:08am

      The common thread is which political party consistently votes for measures favoring slavery. That party, the oldest political party in the United States, is the democrat party. This effort started before the republican party started in 1854. For instance 1820 Missouri Compromise, which impacted the 1857 Supreme Court (7-2) Dred Scott case and led to the pressure resulting in 11 democrat control states seceding from the Union. Republicans are left with majority power in Washington. 1862 northern black Americans in Washington DC are emancipated. 1863 all black Americans are emancipated. Stepping back in time for a moment the Civil War, now matter you reason for its battles, was the democrat majority south against the republican majority north and the result was establishing legal civil rights for black Americans equal to all other ethnic groups of American through out the entire United States.

      After the Civil War the first 23 black Americans voted to Congress including one senator were representing the republican party.

      Please verify my information. Thanks

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:36am

      Tex, in a way you are both right.

      Many Abolitionists and like-minded groups supported Lincoln and the Republican party because they felt he was clearly the candidate that would fight slavery (the other side was definitely pro-slavery in their commitment)… They were a very vocal group. Many of these abolitionists were critical of Lincoln when he didn’t make slavery the reason for fighting the civil war initially. For almost two years of the war if I recall the timing correctly, Lincoln’s main point for fighting he war was an economic reason… He also specifically said he didn’t care how he saved the union, if to keep slavery, abolish it, or send the slaves back to africa, he’d do whatever it took to save the country.

      For the south it was a mix of mostly economic, and secondly the right to keep slavery (as is stated in the Davis correspondence, and confederacy constitution). The economic side included, the right to sovereinty of their own businesses, and not be controlled by northern fat cats. It was a problem that north controlled industry, and all goods were sold to the north to be processed at low costs, to be resold back to the south at high costs.

      Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:57am

      TreeTrimmerJim,

      I’m afraid your information contains a serious flaw – namely the emancipation of all slaves in 1863.

      You obviously haven’t read the Emancipation Proclamation. It freed no slave in the 4 slave states remaining in the Union at the time of the war’s beginning. Ironicly, West Virginia was accepted as a slave state by these abolitionist Republicans and signed by Lincoln in the same month the Proclamation was written. West Virginians ratified their new statehood because of the Emancipation Proclamation’s edict that any state re-joining the Union within 100 days would not have its slavery disturbed.

      The Proclamation specifies that no “loyal” state or territory would be affected by the Proclamation. It even goes further to exempt certain Lousiana parishes that were never under Union control throughout the war. Why? These large sugar plantations were owned by wealthy Lincoln financial supporters in New York – and yes, used vast amounts of slave labor. Sugar, consequently, was the only southern business recieving “bounty” at the time (the previous word for Federal subsidy).

      Lincoln and Obama are perfect overlays of each other. From feigning the name of God in their speeches to “Fundamentally Transforming” the nature of our Republic. On a percentage basis, Lincoln had more avowed socialist revolutionaries in his camp than Obama does now. And just like Obama, used the issue of race to propel his actual desired outcome.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:03pm

      “I do approve of the segregation that is being attempted in several of the departments, I think if you were here on the ground you would see, as I seem to see, that it is distinctly to the advantage of the colored people themselves that they should be organized, so far as possible and convenient, in district bureaus where they will center their work.” ~ President Woodrow Wilson, 1913

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:11pm

      unReconstructon…

      This is a quote from the proclamation. Please note these words “all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State”. That pretty much says all.

      “That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.”

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:15pm

      WATERS,
      It’s the Republican that are trying to close the borders and enforce immigration and the democrats you somehow think Hispanic will vote for them that are letting the floods of illegals into our country.
      The Democrat party has been America since it began and it is now destroying America from within.

      Report Post »  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:57pm

      WATERSRPEOPLE
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:31am
      “I wonder how many Republicans back then in the Civil War era just wanted to release blacks from slavery for the same reason many modern Republicans want illegals to keep coming to the U.S for cheap labor? I’m sure there was enough.”

      Waters… please explain how releasing slaves from slavery lowers the cost of labor? Slave owners paid only for clothing, board and room for slaves, how does freeing slaves lower their cost?

      Free labor is free to choose where and under what terms they will work for an employer. That is what led to retirement and health care benefits in the work place.

      Employers traded higher wages in present time for lower wages and future benefits. Eventually a majority of workers decided that rather than save from their higher wages for future needs, retirement and healthcare, they would accept lower wages and let their employer do the saving for them.

      Today we have lost sight of that distinction to the point that health care has elevated from an individual believing they are capable of proving for their future needs, we have decided the employer can’t do provide those services and so the government must do provide healthcare. Is retirement soon to follow?

      Its the use your skills or loose them syndrome carried to the end of the trail. Now we hear if our government fails then we will turn to the world government to provide those functions.

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:01pm

      ExPatriate is completely right.

      The notion the south fought to preserve slavery is not. They did fight to preserve the right to choose for themselves – as every state that had abolished slavery previously had done. Every colony signing the Declaration of Indpendence, was a slave colony. 11 remained slave at the signing of the Constitution.

      Emancipation bills were upon the house floors of 4 southern states prior to Lincoln’s inauguration. Tennessee in particular voted against secession based upon the issue of slavery 2:1 prior to the plans to invade – not once – but twice. Once military action was called for, Tennessee reversed that ratio, and made no mention of slavery in its secession declaration.

      The entire issue of slavery, both historicly and presently, is to deflect from the real issues of Constitutional foundation. Before anyone reading this article jumps on the “Abolishionist” bandwagon – I sincerely urge you to study their entire backround. You’ll find that all but one was a socialist and/or outright communist. Owenites (as Lincoln proclaimed on the Senate floor “this is how all men should live”), Fourians, Rappites – the list of avowed communistic/socialistic movements of the time will astound the researcher – as well as the political figureheads involved that made up the nucleus of the new Republican party of the time.

      A good starting point for the truth is here:
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo143.html

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:42pm

      UNRECONSTRUCTEDLIBERTARIAN
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:01pm
      ExPatriate is completely right.
      “The notion the south fought to preserve slavery is not. They did fight to preserve the right to choose for themselves – as every state that had abolished slavery previously had done. Every colony signing the Declaration of Indpendence, was a slave colony. 11 remained slave at the signing of the Constitution.”

      “Every colony signing the Declaration of Indpendence, was a slave colony.” because of British law. Interesting is the fact that when Georgia was made a colony, 1732, it was slave and alcohol free. Also the practice of the Catholic religion was prohibited. Georgia became a slave colony in 1749 after James Oglethorpe petitioned the English to make it so.

      UnReconstruction says ” Tennessee in particular voted against secession based upon the issue of slavery 2:1 prior to the plans to invade – not once – but twice.” Tennessee, of course, was not one of the 13 colonies.

      Six free states, black Americans can vote, in 1788 when a majority of states ratified the Constitution: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York. Two of those states had both free and slave black Americans, New Jersey and New York.

      States that seceded: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA. Original colonies, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:24pm

      TreeTrimmer,

      Consider yourself lucky TheBlaze censors have kept me from presenting the unabridged text of the Emancipation Proclamation all day long. Your quote thereof is entirely edited to misguide. They won’t even let me include a link to the entire text of the EP, why? They don’t want anyone reading it for themselves. Anyone caring enough to read it in its entirety for themselves, know I’m telling the truth – and you are a liar.

      In case you didn’t understand: only 2 of the original states had any form of emancipation at the ratification of the Constitution. A somber realization being as both the left and right sides of political bullcrap spew that only the south had slaves – ever. Most of the states that were supposedly “free” in the north had both laws and constitutional provisions barring black residence until the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. Connecticut and Massachusetts were the only states having any form of emancipation at the Constitution’s signing. Your “voting rights” were for free blacks – who lived alongside slaves of their own color in those states.

      I know Tennessee wasn’t a colony or co-signer of the Constitution, and never presented it as such. But, I did present it as an example – as was Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas – as being states in 1861 that specificly DID NOT secede over slavery – but because of Lincoln’s Constitutional usurpation. Their declarations never even mention the word.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • TunaBlue
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:42pm

      @Tex, Water, Sir…

      Still crying about the past and using the “myth of the lost cause” to justify your weak position. This is merely the neo-Confederate vision of the past, that slavery had nothing to do with the war. Instead, the neo-Confederate supplants the Confederate cause as a righteous struggle for liberty, and the Southern way of life, replete with slavery at the heart of its economic system.

      “The South would have won if they hadn’t run out of troops and supplies” is a favorite refrain of the neo-C’s. You are phony apostles of the Lost Cause, who most certainly would not accept the truth as written in essays by General Lee and his generals that prove beyond a doubt the origin and development of the basic tenets of the Lost Cause ideology. No, you won’t like those truths.

      There’s only one real story here, that the South took a lickin’ because of the threat to spread slavery beyond their borders. That and it was time to right the evil wrong that was wrought by the English Colonial.

      Report Post »  
    • WarHawks
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:42pm

      Sorry, Tex – SLAVERY was the reason the south seceded from the union, plain and simple. The neo-confederates of a later era rewrote history to perpetuate the “Lost Cause” reasoning for the War of the Rebellion. People may want to cloak slavery in “states rights” garb, but the south seceded to protect slavery and white supremacy.

      Report Post » WarHawks  
    • TreeTrimmerJim
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:31pm

      reConn…

      The assertion by reConn… is “Connecticut and Massachusetts were the only states having any form of emancipation at the Constitution’s signing.”

      State constitutions protecting voting rights for blacks included those of Delaware (1776), [5] Maryland (1776), [6] New Hampshire (1784), [7] and New York (1777). [8] (Constitution signer Rufus King declared that in New York, “a citizen of color was entitled to all the privileges of a citizen. . . . [and] entitled to vote.”) [9] Pennsylvania also extended such rights in her 1776 constitution, [10] as did Massachusetts in her 1780 constitution. [11] In fact, nearly a century later in 1874, US Rep. Robert Brown Elliott (a black Republican from SC) queried: “When did Massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man? She has never done it; she will not do it.” [12]
      [5] The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America (Boston: Norman and Bowen, 1785), p. 92, 1776 Delaware Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #6.
      [6] Constitutions (1785), p. 104, 1776 Maryland Constitution, “Declaration of Rights,” #5.
      [7] Constitutions (1785), p. 5, 1784 New Hampshire Constitution, “Bill of Rights,” #11.
      [8] Constitutions (1785), p. 58, 17

      Report Post » TreeTrimmerJim  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:15pm

      The Lost Cause – evidently was the Constitution.

      None of you damnned yankee neo-conservative jackwagons have dealt with the truth. How about you study the Confederate Constitution for yourself? Understand, not ONE provision dealing with slavery is any different than that which was upheld in the United States before-during-and until the 13th Amendment was ratified. Abraham Lincoln himself once defended a Kentuckian’s right to travel into a free-state (Illinois) with his slaves and maintain ownership to work land holdings in the “free” state.

      1.) No Illegal aliens could vote: period. National, State, or Local. Article 1-2-1
      2.) Presidential Line Item Veto. Article 1-7-2
      3.) No subsidies, nor taxes levied to foster any branch of industry. No bailiouts. Article 1-8-1
      4.)Commerce Clause clarified, no bailouts or money allocated to “internal improvement” schemes Article 1-8-3
      5.)Post Office to be self-sufficient Article 1-8-7
      6.) Severe budgetary limits/controls Article 1-8-9 / 1-8-10
      7.) Single Topic Bills – subject expressed explicitly in the title – no “Christmas Tree” bills Article 1-8-20
      8.) Single 6 year term for President – not re-eligible Article 2-1-1
      9.) No recess appointments by the President Article 2-2-4
      10.) Article 5-1: The Congress was not able to draft nor pass Constitutional Amendments, only the States acting in convention could do so. Then to be ratified by the People.

      Early Republicans fought against these things – literally.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:01pm

      TreeTrimmer,

      The truth is in your own evidence. The key word is “Citizen”. Free Blacks were considered citizens – by some states but certainly not all. Slaves, were not considered citizens – in any state whatsoever. This was the entire crux of the Dred Scott debacle. So yes, your cited states had black voting rights – but those did not extend to the slaves held in those states.

      Its going to pain you to discover, that even in some southern states – free blacks who had been given the right of citizenship – could also vote. Ironicly, some of the largest slaveholders in the south, were free blacks. Many free blacks in South Carolina and Louisiana were of high prominence both socially and politically.

      I have no problem dealing with what was wrong racially – but dammit what the south had Constitutionally right then is STILL RIGHT! Have you not noticed that the progressive socialists still equate anything conservative and/or constitutional with the issue of slavery? Slavery hasn’t existed for 146 years – none of us want it to return!

      Yet, here we are – should be on the same side – divided by a progressive mythology designed expressly to keep us apart (which has worked fabulously). We should be picking the things that were right from both sides – and going forward – but that’s not allowed. Its not “politically correct” – and thus the “Lost Cause” becomes conservatism and our constitutional founding in totality.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
    • Lab-Tech
      Posted on August 28, 2012 at 1:55am

      @treetrimmerjim,

      Did you quote Woodrow to further showcase your Phoenix University B.S. is History? (All pun intended there.)

      Look, I don’t jump in these things much. But anyone taking your stances and using Woodrow Wilson quotes probably needs another course in Intro to Civics. And your questions about how freeing slaves could drop labor cost tells me you flunked out of econ too, or Devry doesn’t offer those stay in the bed courses. Free labor created retirement and health benefits, huh? Bahahahaha, right <sarcasm.

      All of this tells me two things. A, if you attended any institution of higher learning, it was a liberal arts program. B, people using selective history as yourself to untoward a generation with blind deception is the reason America has fallen so far behind in Academics and the value of a college degree is deflating as the cost inflates.

      "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

      - Thomas Jefferson

      Report Post »  
  • BobtheMoron
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:22am

    I and relatives back several generations were Democrats primarily due to the rape of the South after The War of Northern Aggression. It was the feeling then and now that Lincoln’s actions against the various states was extra-constitutional. This, at the time, was seen in the same light as Obama’s hundreds of executive orders. For the record my relatives were too damned poor to own slaves as were most people in the South. The illegal actions and the strangling economics rules were a primary source of anger in the South. The pressure on the South to abolish slavery was immense, but other economic factors led to war. The primary product from the South was cotton. Northern mills were lobbying Congress, successfully, to force the South to sell all of the cotton to them. They paid far less than the English who had immense mills that needed cotton. TheSouthern farmers wanted the greater price and a lot of cotton was smuggled to England. This led to further economic restrictions which led to more Southern anger. Lincoln was both the savior of the nation and the cause of a civil war that the South will not forget. We were ‘rode had and put up wet’ after the war. A Democrat killed Lincoln, started the KKK and have opposed every legitimate racial equality law ever made. I became a Conservative in the Sixties when I saw what being a Democrat meant. By the way, Lincoln only freed the slaves in the states that seceded.

    Report Post » BobtheMoron  
  • EndTheGOPTEA
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:19am

    It makes me sad that we have to go back over 100 years to feel better about what we have become.

    Report Post » EndTheGOPTEA  
  • Ash_Kiker
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:52am

    The blacks stick with the democrates beause they want to be taken care of, a slave to the democrates… it is unfortunate that all the folks that the dems supposedly take care of remain in poverty… unless they actually go out and get a job.
    The American Indian is aperfect example.. they live in poverty, no jobs, alcoholism on the high… but then there are a few that got smart and opened casinos… and of course the dems get a big chunk of the profits.

    Report Post »  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:50pm

      The 19th Century Republicans invented the “Freedmans’ Bureau“ and ”40 acres and a mule”. Which effectively transferred ownership to the government of the “contraband” slaves liberated during the war. When those programs had served their purpose – they cut ‘em loose. But, not after they had made blacks the scapegoated object of southern hatred. The hatred southrons had for central government was completely invested in the black population by the political actions of Radical Republicans in the 1800′s.

      Brilliant move – one which the modern Democrats are perfectly repeating to their advantage in our own day and time – the conservatives are falling for it. New Black Panthers? NAACP/Sharpton/Jackson? DREAM act? More of the same.

      Democrats didn’t invent government “entitlement” programs or behavior, but they sure have perfected and broadened it since the 1960′s.

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
  • Jenny Lind
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:49am

    I have hope, over time, the truth about these things will be seen by enough people that history will get somewhat restored. Knowledge is a powerfull thing and there are more and more young black people who are finding out about the lies they have been told. As more and more of them get off the plantation of dependancy, they will be examples for others. The internet is a very powerfull tool, and like the guys said“the truth is out there somewhere”.

    Report Post »  
  • soybomb315_II
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:49am

    “I will say than that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
    Abraham Lincoln. 1858 debate with Stephen Douglass

    Report Post » soybomb315_II  
  • KidCharlemagne
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:36am

    “The modern Republican Party absolutely owes its origin to the fight over slavery,“
    ==========================================

    Pure propaganda:

    ————————————-
    “The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress, 2nd Session, on March 2, 1861, in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. It would forbid subsequent attempts to amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to “abolish or interfere” with the “domestic institutions” of the states, including “persons held to labor or service” (a reference to slavery).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

    “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
    Abraham Lincoln, 1st Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

    Report Post »  
    • martyinhagerstown
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:37am

      Lincoln was commenting for sure on the right of the people to change the constitution following the guidelines for change in the instrument itself. He may have agreed and supported the proposal but that is NOT what he said in this context.

      Report Post »  
    • vinny48
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:37pm

      Pure Propaganda???

      I realize some here have a better grasp of history than I have but when you criticize actions of Lincoln taken probably weeks before the start of the civil war, just like the those who claim the founders where Hippocrates because they wrote of man’s unalienable right to be free and had slaves of their own is a joke. Look att the times both lived in. The founders where risking their lives to create a new nation they needed all the colonies to speak in unison and abolishing slavery never would have accomplish that it was a losing proposition. Lincoln I’m sure as many others of that time saw the handwriting on the wall that the republic was in serious trouble and states were seceding from the union and war was imminent.

      But, one thing you can’t refute is the Democrat Party started the KKK, the Democrat party tried to filibuster the passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Republican Party broke the filibuster to proceed with a vote. But if you really want to talk about history LBJ gets credit for the great Great Society, when all it actually did was create a subservient class who accepted free social programs, allowed themselves to live in slums, eventually accepted the democrats form of broken families and crime ridden streets for a check in the mail and vote for the big “D” every election. That certainly has worked out well, hasn’t it.

      Report Post »  
  • rambosharley
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:18am

    It does prove the DumboCrats have done a bang up job of teaching ‘not so true history’! It’s sad when you think about it. However, that‘s their agenda and they’re sticking to it!

    Report Post »  
    • EddardStark
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:09am

      So you think that teachers change Lincoln’s political party to Democrat in order to indoctrinate kids in the glory of the Democratic party? If you don’t remember the history of the Republican party being taught in school, perhaps you should have paid more attention, because Tom Foreman was simply summarizing every 10th grade textbook in the country. The history of the Republican party is fascinating and critically important to the evolution of the country, including the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the populist Homestead Act, American imperialism and the Republican Progressive Era, but to say that Republican origins as an anti-slavery party are somehow relevant to the demographics of the modern Republican party is ignorant and idiotic. Just because you find this Republican history revelatory doesn’t mean that it is.

      Report Post » EddardStark  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:08pm

      stark,
      Reminds us all which party started the KKK,LYNCHING BLACKS,JIM CROW,RESEGREGATED THE MILITARY,AND FOUGHT THE CIVILS RIGHTS ACT EVEN FILBUSTERING THE FINAL VOTE,AND WHO WAS THE LAST KLAN MEMBER TO BE IN OFFICE..ALL DEMOCRATS. Your claim that Republican‘s can’t use it‘s founding to promote it’s current political line up doesn’t hold water. Truth the Democrats have for decades tried to bury it’s skeletons by projecting them on the Republicans.Everything about the Democrats still cry racist,and now socialist can be added to that. The Dems prop up minorities to perpetually keep them from evolving in society like all races should. But it shouldn’t suprise anyone he77 Hillary Clinton called herself a old school progressive and admired Margret sanger something most democrat politician still do….Margret old school progressive sanger that saw blacks as destructive to society and proposed sterlization to keep their numbers down and eventually dissolve them as a race in America. And the one father of modern progressivism george benard shaw who thought up the idea of gas chambers to use on larger sections of the population he thought of as uselss and ignorant.
      So we have politicain as recently as 2008 harping on the old school Democrat and aspiring to the female Hitler of the twentith century and her male progressive counter part Shaw.
      I believe the Democrats have a lot of Old School Progressive in thier ranks….NO DOUBT ABOUT IT

      Report Post »  
    • rambosharley
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:56pm

      Stark,

      I make a broad statement regarding DumboCrats, teaching and history and you completely distort what I was saying! Who’s being “idiotic” now!

      Jamison,

      Regarding what you said, that’s what I was referring to, all the crap the dumboCrats have done and then try to pass it off on Republicans. Thank You!

      Report Post »  
  • rangerp
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:13am

    Yea, and I think the public schools sort of leave that out in the history lessons. Just like the fact they leave out that it was the democrats that fought to keep them as slaves, it was a dem that started the KKK, it was dems that enacted Jim Crowe and separate but equal. It was a dem that segregated Washington DC. It was dems that fought to keep segregation. It was a dem senator that was a grand dragon in the KKK. It was dems that voted agains the civil rights acts, and it was dems that once they discovered they could not stop civil rights, they got generous with the welfare, knowing they could move the black population to a new plantation.

    Report Post » rangerp  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:26am

      KKK was a result of the intervention of the federal government for the first time in American history. The reconstruction was oppressive, offensive, and denied southerners their decency.

      The result was a complete backlash against the reconstruction and the target was the group of people the North used as an excuse to justify the ‘war of southern independence’.

      soybomb315_II  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:36am

      Leave it SOY to try and justify the KKK

      Report Post » therealconservative  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:47am

      if you dont understand how we got here, you will not understand where we are going

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • americansfightingforcommonsense
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:53am

      Just as Joe Biden recently said “They want to put you back in chains”! Biden spells out exactly what the democrats have been doing since day one. Trying to oppress Black Americans! Study your history and you will see that the Dems are totally full of crap. They Lie, Cheat, and Distort History to serve their agenda.

      Report Post » americansfightingforcommonsense  
    • loriann12
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:53am

      Soy, I‘m from the south and you’re so full of sh!7 that your eyes are brown. The KKK is solidly democratic and the reformation was democratic. They were full of carpet baggers who (just like Obama did with union members) were “bussed” in from the North. The KKK didn’t like the fact that anyone but European, and the French didn’t count, were allowed to vote. The Democratic party used slavery as an excuse to hate. When slavery was abolished, they were made to allow blacks to vote, so they made the conventions private parties and only allowed the blacks to vote after they determined who they could vote for. The KKK lynched a lot of whites, too, because they were Republicans. Most blacks were Republican in the south. They switched to Democrat to save their own lives.

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:01am

      THEREALCONSERVATIVE, Actually, SOYBOMB315_II is telling the truth. It’s not an attempt to rationalize the KKK. Reconstruction was brutal and oppressive. The re-constructionist sent to the south simply did more things to disrupt and punish the citizens of the south rather to try and repair problems. I live just outside of the city seat of the former Blaine County. Just for the heck of it, the Union Reconstructionists broke the county into three, now called Etowah, Calhoun, and Cherokee. Blaine County no longer exists. They literally changed the map of our state. All because they could. Of course, there were other acts that were truly more oppressive.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:01am

      @loriann12
      I dont really understand where you disagree with me

      KKK blamed black people for the destruction of their country, the presence of federal troops, and corrupt northern puppet government (carpet baggers as you call them). It was offensive. I dont think KKK would have become the killing (yes they did kill whites) and abusive force that it was if it werent for the heavy hand of reconstruction

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:02am

      i’m from the south too

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • EndTheGOPTEA
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:24am

      Wait, But the KKK Became the NRA after the KKK was outlawed. So the NRA was started by Democrats, I bet that makes them mad.

      Report Post » EndTheGOPTEA  
    • rangerp
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:46am

      EndTheGOPTEA

      The NRA was started in New York. Following the Civil War, a number of veterans from the north (republican) formed the NRA to improve marksmanship. It had no ties, or anything to do with the KKK in the south, and was in no way tied to race. It was purely formed for the improvement of marksmanship.

      It the early years, they had much to do with the marksmanship qualification for police and military.

      Later on, the NRA became involved in teaching gun safety, and hunter education.

      It was not until the late 1930s that the NRA had anything to do with protecting the second amendment.

      Report Post » rangerp  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:20pm

      RANGERP, It amazes me how the simple use of a search engine is forgotten when it’s easier to make stuff up whole cloth.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • UnreconstructedLibertarian
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:25pm

      It would pay alot of you historical idiots largely to go and actually read period southern newspapers, court trials – you know – ACTUAL HISTORY! Instead of falling for this trumped up crap being thrown by both the modern Republicans and Democrats.

      You will not find a 19th century Democrat publication that doesn’t call itself Conservative. You also won’t find a 19th Century Republican publication that WILL call itself conservative. You will find that there were TWO vigilante groups in the south between 1866-71: the KKK and the Union League.

      The original KKK reacted to the one sided execution of law – in that if you were a Republican, you had martial law on your side. If you were a conservative Democrat – you were fair game to anyone wanting to kill you. The Union League, Republican backed, did all the same things the KKK is accused of – and more – to ACTUAL conservatives of both races. However, they got off scott free and history convieniently forgot them because they were de-facto agents of the government. The original KKK did take on retaliatory violence against the Union League and its supporters – of both races. Both disbanded in 1871-72.

      Its hard for us to imagine what one would do in a situation like martial law with no justice. We may be about to find out. Did we not watch the NBPP exonerated for obvious voter intimidation? How does the rhetoric of the NBPP lay on your ears? Shouldn’t Shabazz be detained like Mr. Raub was?

      Report Post » UnreconstructedLibertarian  
  • rfycom
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:03am

    Where was the Jesus during all this?

    Report Post »  
    • rangerp
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:09am

      At the right hand of the Father, and in the hearts of those saved by Grace.

      Report Post » rangerp  
  • thesource
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:03am

    Well this history will shock you then. Learn the history of U.S. Rep. Justin Smith Morrill and George Franklin Edmunds. One of the reasons the Republican party was founded was to stop Mormonism. Hmm, kind of ironic. BTW I don’t really care just thought you would like to know.

    Report Post »  
    • Alex
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:08am

      It is true. It was started to defeat the “twin relics of barbarism” which were said to be polygamy and slavery. CNN only explained half of it. It is an irony, but a welcome one.

      Report Post »  
  • HOOT_OWL
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:00am

    Yeah ..Try explaining this to a black liberal .
    Years of public education has definitely paid off for the Dems.

    Report Post » HOOT_OWL  
  • jackact
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:58am

    This is never taught in the public schools that we are forced to subsidize.
    Including the fact that Lincoln was a republican, the civil rights act was legislated by a republican congress, many Americans involved in the war of independence were black and owned black slaves and Mary Jo Kopechne was killed by drunk, Ted “Lion of the Senate” Kennedy.
    You live, you learn…..unless you happen to be a democrat.

    Report Post »  
    • encinom
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:36am

      You forget to mention Nixon and his Southern Strategy, to win the south by attracting the racist dixicrats that left the Democratic party when Johnson signed the civil rights act.

      The truth and history are something that the Blaze fights against.

      Report Post »  
    • OldGeek72
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:03am

      And don’t forget that MLK Jr was also a member of the GOP.

      Report Post » OldGeek72  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:09am

      ENCINOM, You just have no idea. The Dixiecrats did not leave the Dem-wits. The Southern Democrats were always referred to as Dixiecrats. They eventually became the last remaining conservative wing of the Democrats. When the Democrat Party abandoned them entirely to become the loony left liberals they are today, common sense prevailed then many switched parties. The South is still full of registered Democrats. In fact probably still far more than registered Republicans. They just have sense enough not to vote Democrat in national elections.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • jackact
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:15am

      Dear dum-o-crat (ENCINOM),
      Too bad you attended the same public school system that deprived you of valuable history lessons too.
      Richard Nixon, in his time, was considered an ineffectual RINO (aka = moderate democrat).
      by the conservative movement.
      He opened pandoras box with the CHICOM and vastly expanded the misery of entitlement programs that are currently choking our prosperity to death
      If this is the best you got then stick a fork in it because you, and your destructive ideology and pig ignorance, are done.

      Report Post »  
  • Individualism
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:53am

    yeah i miss the old pary when i wasn’t hijacked by zionists and neo cons.

    Report Post » Individualism  
    • therealconservative
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:05am

      Or trying to hi-jacked by delusional “followers” of the career politician and con-man Ron Paul

      Report Post » therealconservative  
    • DogTags
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:07am

      Individualism, you’re mistaken. I think you’re nostalgic for the old Nazi party, not the GOP.

      Report Post »  
    • EndTheGOPTEA
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:28am

      This is not your Fathers GOP. This one is based on fear and hate and blindness, We will end all that education junk and just teach our kids about God and Guns. The Teaparty and Birthers have ruined the GOP, they have made us a joke in the eyes of the world.. the world!

      Report Post » EndTheGOPTEA  
    • Individualism
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:47am

      you neo cons are the nazis, you even advocated murdering all muslims like you folks did in Germany about the jews.

      Report Post » Individualism  
    • The_Cabrito_Goat
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:01pm

      And you don’t advocate the death of Jews? Do you know how many nations surround Israel, salivating like chained up hounds at the thought of being unleashed on that tiny plot of land? Do you know what they will do to them?

      Jews have no where else to run.

      Remember the S.S. St. Louis.

      Report Post » The_Cabrito_Goat  
    • DogTags
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:58pm

      “Neo-con“ is the code word for ”conservative Jew.“ ”Zionists” is the code word for Jews who believe their homeland was given to them by God. So Individualism hates Jews and he says the new Republican party are Nazis? You are not making sense, Individualism.

      I am a proud American that unashamedly supports Israel‘s right to exist as a nation and prefer Israel’s love of liberty to their Arab neighbors’ love of totalitarianism.

      Report Post »  
  • encinom
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:52am

    Of course that is before Nixon and the Southern Strategy. When the Dixi-Crats ledt the Democrats over the Civil Rights Act, Nixon saw he could win the south by embracing the racists.

    Today’s GOP is nothing like the pre-Nixon Southern Strategy GOP. The Northern Moderate Republicans have been run out of the party. Today’s GOP is held hostage to the religious extremists and fringe tea party activists. Reagan, if he was alive today would have been cursed as being a RINO and too progressive for the party. Reagan was argued for a higher tax rate for the rich.

    Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:40am

      ENCINOM, You left out the part regarding The Southern Strategy where the south was swayed by the Democrat Party’s solid support for slavery prior to the Civil War, and it’s even more solid support for segregation for a century following the Civil War. The Dem-wits played a heavy hand in what you accuse as racism too. Remember what LBJ said in the Oval Office shortly after signing the Civil Rights Act….

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • SistaTriscuit
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:44am

    Well, you know what the blind Dem-wits will say… they‘ll drag out the ol’ “The political parties switched sides!!” argument. I guess the 98% of Republicans that voted in support of the Civil Rights Act of ‘64 (while the Dems’ own KKK card-carrying member Robert Byrd feverishly filibustered it in the Senate) “switched sides” and later became Dems, right? At least that’s the story that many lefties try to propagate.

    It was also the words of “radical” Republican senators that Susan B. Anthony used to support her stance on equality issues for women. The first time she voted (and was later arrested because it was still illegal for women to vote) she voted a straight REPUBLICAN ticket. Now tell me, why on earth would she do that if Republicans did not embody the very things she was fighting for at the time?

    One thing has always remained true in regard to politics – Dems EXPLOIT those segments of society they claim to champion. The “war on women” is but one example of this in a sea of issues…. along with those they continue to sell the welfare state mentality to.

    Report Post » SistaTriscuit  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:51am

      SISTATRISCUIT, I agree whole heartedly, and I plan to steal your Dem-wit comment for intended future use. Thanks for sharing that with us.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • americansfightingforcommonsense
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:58am

      Sista you are reading my mind. Our Federal Gonvernment took over the education system in this country and the Libs/Progressives jumped in quick to change the narrative and try to change history.
      Wasn’t ity Michelle Obama that said “Barack knows that we have change our traditions, our history,…”? Wake up America!

      Report Post » americansfightingforcommonsense  
    • Deuteronomy22
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:18am

      Virtually every opponent of the act was from a from southern (red) state. Party affiliation has changed dramatically from the 60s.

      Report Post » Deuteronomy22  
    • starman70
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:22am

      WOW!! Right on!

      It’s the DUMBOCRATS who have created the modern plantation, keeping the populace of the inner cities and some rural blacks enslaved to the government slavemasters. They are enslaved by the plethora of “Welfare” programs and have been conditioned by preceeding generations of receiptants to vote DUMBOCRATIC because if they don’t they will lose all those “Benefits”. The DUMBOCRATS have created an atmosphere of reliance on government instead of self reliance and self improvement (Look at Odummer’s suspension of the workfare program). Unfortunately, the schools in those areas are so poor and the teachers (Unionized) teach that the government will provide for all the needs of the community, so why should you strive for self improvement. Just rely on the Government.

      It’s time that the Republicans work to end the modern slavery. Yes, they will meet resistance from the likes of Jesse Jackson, Louis Ferrakhan and Al Sharpton, hoo-doo artists, who have grown rich taking “Donations” from the residents claiming they are “Saving” their livelyhood all the while they actually are promoting the continuance of the enslavement. The real unfortunate part is that the residents of the inner cities can’t see it. They can’t see that they have been taken to the cleaners by these “Saviors” all the while, these race baiting con artists live in opulent style, off the ‘DONATIONS”.

      Report Post »  
    • celestialfire
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:07am

      Also, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower tried to pass civil rights legislation in 1957. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 passed the house and was neutered in the Senate by Democrats Richard Russell and Lyndon Johnson for their own political purpose.

      Report Post »  
  • americansfightingforcommonsense
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:43am

    That is exactly right that the Republican Party were the ones fighting to end slavery, While the Democrat Party helped to form the KKK and fight against freeing the slaves. So why is it that there is a huge amount of black Americans that join the Democrat Party? I think it’s because they have not learned to embrace capitalism which is the one big thing that separates us from the rest of the world. Capitalism has helped us to put a man on the moon, to produce cars, appliances, and so on that help to make our lives easier. It is communism and socialism that destroys ones HOPE to have a better life.
    Wake up America! It’s time to stand for true freedom!

    Report Post » americansfightingforcommonsense  
    • SistaTriscuit
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:48am

      Couldn’t agree more! I often wonder why on earth so many blacks align themselves with the party that fought against Civil Rights…. the truth is, many of them simply do not know the truth thanks to our education system having been co-opted by progressives and a revisionist version of history fed to the last few generations.

      Report Post » SistaTriscuit  
  • RJJinGadsden
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:42am

    Geez, this will send our usual trolls into a fiery, spitting, hissy fit! Be prepared to laugh uncontrollably when they start telling their usual lies. You know, those about how the first Democrat president, Andrew Jackson originally wanted to free the slaves, and how it was the Republican Congress that started the Trail Of Tears….no….wait, there were no Republicans then, were there? This will be a tin hat sh/t fit.

    Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • JACKTHETOAD
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:50am

      Didn’t Johnson stonewall them RJ? Those darn Dems. They finally started sleeping on their sheets last week, and now they want a free pass.

      Report Post » JACKTHETOAD  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:00am

      LOL, sleeping on their sheets. What a novel idea for democrats! Oh yeah, forgot to mention how Heap Big Squaw Warren’s ancestor had his arm twisted out of socket to take part as a herdsman in the Trail Of Tears.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
  • soybomb315_II
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:40am

    Lincoln whas a whig. The whigs had more in common with today‘s democrats than today’s republicans.

    The good news is that the Republicans are moving more towards the Constitution – ever so slowly

    Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:57am

      SOYBOMB315_II, If I am correct, and I believe that I am off the top of my head. The Whigs were originally a British party and actually were conservatives. Different from our perspective of conservatives, but nonetheless conservatives.
      This is from some of Andrew Jackson’s history.
      “As national politics polarized around Jackson and his opposition, two parties grew out of the old Republican Party–the Democratic Republicans, or Democrats, adhering to Jackson; and the National Republicans, or Whigs, opposing him.”
      You can read the whole thing at:
      http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson
      The Whigs were not remotely related to the Dems.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:00am

      Which policies does todays democratic party share with the whig party? The policy that Congress should have more power thyan the President? No the Dems in Congress have no lifted a finger to stop Obama from using UnConstitutional executive orders to by pass law written and passed by congress. I know it the policy of economic protectivism…wait not the Dems made NAFTA a law,are constantly bowing the U.N. regulations,and given companies tax dollars to build production plants in mexico,canada,china and europe.
      I know it the Whig party plan sent Lincoln fleeing the party……the plan to expand slavery,Just like todays Democrats expanding the government plantation and even bring border jumpers in as well……..That’s what todays dems have in common with the whigs. SLAVERY EXPANSION
      I and one more thing I guarantee you everyone of those whigs party members that wanted to expand slavery became card carrying Democrats after the whig party dissolved…… And every one of those whig party member that wanted to stop slavery became Republicans we know Lincoln did.

      Report Post »  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:15am

      Here are some of the things Whigs believed in:
      -Price controls (like any good progressive)
      -Government spending on private projects like railroads (like solyndra)
      -High tariffs and anti-free trade (because they thought competition was bad)
      -Universal education (like the communists)

      Lots of things in common with today’s democrats. Obviously, it was a different time, but they were DEFINATELY the progressives of their day.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_(United_States)

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
    • Dr Vel
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:17am

      Not to mention it was Andrew Jackson who was the driving force behind manifest destiny, the trail of tears, and breaking just about every single treaty ever signed with the Indians. Andrew Jackson was responsible for more annihilation of the Indians and their way of life, and loss of lands, than any other president in history before or since. Andrew Jackson ordered them driven out of the Black Hills for the newest gold rush, among other atrocities. Don’t you love it when lying libs try to hijack history and blame their evil on the other side? This is because the only history they study is progressive history written by you guessed it, lying libs!

      Report Post »  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:22am

      Do you not know your own partys recent history NAFTA did away with tarriffs totally signed by wj clinton. That’s the exact opposite of protectionism
      The Remind us all about which republican politician are againt education of U.S. CITIZENS.
      Oh yeah it is Obama and his union cronies protecting the public union and fighting the voucher programs for independent schools which as shown the produce better educated students.
      And remind which Republican politician are against viable transportation options. And you using Solydra as a defense of your party…….Is as stupid as using an industry like high speed rail which loses 10′s of billions a year across the country that the tax payer in up stuck with……..Maybe your party is like the whig party in that it needs to be abolished as well…… oh and of course that whole government plantation pro-slavery expansion stance you hve in common with the whigs

      Report Post »  
  • AJAYW
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:39am

    More to support the saying – no good deed goes unpunished– blacks and whites turned to the demo-Rats for one thing, What can you give me for doing nothing. Free Riders.

    Report Post »  
  • kfrederic
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:38am

    When was it our schools stopped teaching real history?

    Report Post » kfrederic  
    • SistaTriscuit
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:45am

      About the time the progressive movement co-opted our education system…

      Report Post » SistaTriscuit  
    • soybomb315_II
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:01am

      “When was it our schools stopped teaching real history?”

      When the government began trying to control the minds of men….1864

      Report Post » soybomb315_II  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:37am

    Already knew this.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • cstrx
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:34am

    And conversely the democrats started the KKK…

    Report Post »  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:38am

      Look into a pre civil war group known as the ‘white caps’ you may be suprises with some of the connections.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • johnjamison
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:45am

      The Public schools mention almost nothing for the Fact the Republican party was orginally the Abolitionist party or the fact that every single racist law in U.S. history was written and passed by Democrats. I never knew that the Democratic party was the party that blocked civil rights from the days Warren Harden til the 1960′s. Kid aren’t taught the truth and when they learn the truth teachers start them telling them that while that is true the Democrats the blocked civil right moved to the Republican party after they lost the battle to stop civil rights……But then if students ask which ones the room goes silent.

      Report Post »  
  • TIME_THE_AVENGER
    Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:33am

    Oh, jeez. What are you guys tryin’ to do? Make the Dems‘ heads’ explode? Again? You people must be Gallagher fans. Right?

    Report Post » TIME_THE_AVENGER  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:45am

      Well, actually I have been a Gallagher fan for quite a while. I would compare our liberals expected cranium conversion to that of what happened to Michael Ironside in the movie Screamers. The first one, not the one with the Robocop star.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:09am

      Okay, couldn’t pull up that scene on You Tube, but this shows a still photo of that scene.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanners

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love