Some ads are provided by Google

They are not endorsed by The New American

Banner
Skeletons Inside the Democratic Party Closet | Print |  
Written by Sam Blumenfeld   
Friday, 23 April 2010 10:52
History is not taught very well in today's public schools, and that is why the history of the Democratic Party is totally unknown by the American voting public. Believe it or not, the Democratic Party was inspired by those Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 who forced all of the other delegates to accept the institution of slavery as the price of their participation in the new government. That is why the Southern states were able to count each slave as three-fifths of a person in determining the number of representatives the state could send to Congress.

Although the Constitution called for ending the importation of slaves by 1808, the Southerners were compensated by Section 2 of Article IV, which stated: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

The word slavery was not mentioned in the Constitution because such men as Washington, Madison, Franklin and others had hoped to abolish slavery, but were forced into the compromises that made it possible for the Southern states to join the union. They expected that the Southern states would phase out this inhuman institution over a period of time.

But the opposite happened, and the Democratic Party, which was formally organized in 1831, became the pro-slavery party. While the importation of slaves was forbidden, the population of slaves grew dramatically because of deliberate slave breeding. The children of slaves were automatically considered slaves. Many a white slave owner could thereby increase the value of his slave property by impregnating his female slaves.

Opposing the Democrats was the Whig Party, organized in 1839. But because the party contained within its ranks both pro-slavery Southerners and anti-slavery Northerners, the party was too divided to be effective. They were gradually overshadowed by a new political group, the Republican Party, manned by determined abolitionists. The contest between North and South now became far more bitter and well defined.

The National Democratic Convention met at Baltimore in June of 1852. Among its resolutions were the following: "All efforts of Abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of Slavery" will "endanger the stability and permanency of the Union."…"Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the Slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

At the Democratic National Convention in Cincinnati in June, 1856, the party reiterated its repudiation of all attempts by abolitionists to interfere with the institution of slavery, which, if not stopped, "must end in civil war and disunion."

Meanwhile, agitation for secession on the part of the South had been growing to the point where most Southerners saw no solution to the problem other than seceding from the United States. Sen. Iveson of Georgia, in an 1860 address to his constituents said: "Slavery must be maintained in the Union if possible, out of it if necessary; peaceably if we may, forcibly if we must."

In other words, the South had decided that it preferred preserving the institution of slavery over preserving the United States of America. Slavery was more important than union.


The election of Democrat James Buchanan as president in 1857 gave Southerners the opportunity to plan secession with the help of Buchanan's Southern members of his cabinet. For example, John B. Floyd, secretary of war, managed to transfer huge amounts of military stores and equipment from Northern armories to Southern ones in preparation for war. As a result the North was rendered defenseless.

When the Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln for president in 1860, the slave states decided that the time had come for quitting the Union, setting the stage for Civil War. The Southern Democrats, so totally imbued with their own power to destroy the Union, did not know what they were up against in the person of Abraham Lincoln. By 1865, by the time the Civil War was over, the South lay in ruins and slavery had been abolished. The Democratic Party then became the party of racial segregation and Jim Crow.

And what is the Democratic Party today? It is the party of left-wing socialism, dumbed-down public education, impotence toward Iran, amnesty for illegal immigrants, abortion on demand, gay marriage, more taxes for everyone, bans on oil drilling and "change you can believe in?" As the French say, "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose," the more it changes, the more it's the same thing.

Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of nine books on education including NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, The Whole Language/OBE Fraud, and The Victims of Dick & Jane and Other Essays. Of NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education, former U.S. Senator Steve Symms of Idaho said: “Every so often a book is written that can change the thinking of a nation. This book is one of them.” Mr. Blumenfeld’s columns have appeared in such diverse publications as Reason, The New American, The Chalcedon Report, Insight, Education Digest, Vital Speeches, WorldNetDaily, and others.

Trackback(0)
Comments (5)add comment
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed

Gene Berkman said:

0
 Front for the Government Employees Unions
Today's Democratic Party is little more than a front for the government employeess unions. In the 1980s, the members of the National Education Association were the largest bloc at the Democratic National Convention. Now the Service Employees International Union is even more important, along with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees.

And you wonder why government is so big?
April 23, 2010 | url

David S said:

0
 Huh?
This is an embarrassingly simple-minded account of the South, slavery, and the Democratic party to come from such a learned man as Mr. Blumenfeld. I'll pick just two points.

The Democratic party was inspired by far more than merely Southern delegates wanting to protect slavery. Good grief, Thomas Jefferson opposed slavery, yet he was THE most prominent member of the burgeoning party. Given the amazing abuse of power and the Constitution by the Federalists -- both before the election of Jefferson and after via incumbent federal judges like John Marshall -- I'm extremely grateful for the limited-government convictions of Jefferson's Democratic party.

As for the South valuing slavery over the union, that may be true for some. Yet this was exactly Lincoln's position as well!! Quoting Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it;"

Moreover, secession would not have necessarily benefited the South. Some leading abolitionists also supported secession. They thought that without the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (an example of hypocrisy by some states' rights supporters in the South), the increased number of runaway slaves and the increased cost in enforcing slavery, would have made slavery increasingly nonviable.

Tom Woods has noted that this is exactly teh process whereby slavery was abolished in Brazil. First it was abolished in one Brazilian state. As a result, "the value of slaves fell dramatically, and within four years the Brazilian government had acknowledged the reality of the situation by enacting immediate and uncompensated emancipation."

I lack the time to further unpack this farrago of simplistic assertions.






April 23, 2010

David S said:

0
 opps
I hit send to hastily! Correcting my 3rd paragraph, obviously Lincoln's position with respect to slavery and the union wasn't "exactly" the same as that of the slaveholders of the South. Nevertheless, he shared an ambivalence about the tragedy of slavery as illustrated by his letter to Greeley.
April 23, 2010

rprew said:

0
 An inaccurate history
George Washington advised against the formation of parties, but two parties nevertheless emerged. One was the Federalists, the party of strong government. The other, the party of Jefferson, was the Democratic-Republican party. If there ever was a party which stood for limited government, it was this party.

During the dispute of the tariff of 1832, the Democratic-Republican party split. The emerging Democratic party was in favor of lower tariffs, popular in the agrarian South. The other faction was called the National Republican Party, later adopting the name of Whig. This party was in favor of the higher tariffs favored by the industrial North. Both parties contained those who were abolitionists and those who were pro-slavery. The primary differences lie in tariffs and the attitude towards states rights.

The "slavery issue" which split the Democratic party in the 1860 election, resulting in a sectional victory for Lincoln, could be better described as a dispute over the power of Congress to legislate on the issue of slavery, which was in turn was an economic struggle.

Mr. Blumenfeld has greatly over simplified the matter. To paint the Democratic party's early history of one dedicated solely to the protection of slavery is just outright flawed, as is the thoughts that the early Republican party was so pure. The Republicans (as a party) cared not one iota for the just treatment of the black man. The party was (and still is) all about power and money. They would happily have sent every last Negro on the continent off to some colony in the Caribbean.

Was slavery ever a big issue? You bet it was, but not for all the noble purposes we have been taught to believe. History is not so black and white.
April 23, 2010

rprew said:

0
 While in the Illinois legislature...
Lincoln encouraged other legislators to appropriate funds for the removal of every last free Negro from the state of Illinois.

As president, Lincoln developed plans to send every last black person to Africa, Haiti, Central America - anywhere but the United States. On December 1, 1862, before Congress, Lincoln said, "I cannot make it better know than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization."
April 23, 2010

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy