The Republican Party Was the Party of Slavery

[Ethereal]

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were the founders of the Republican party. They were also southern slaveholders.

These are simple facts that can be verified by Madison and Jefferson's own statements or, if that is too difficult for some, a basic entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica:


Democratic-Republican Party (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Democratic-Republican-Party)

Democratic-Republican Party, originally (1792–98) Republican Party, first opposition political party in the United States. Organized in 1792 as the Republican Party, its members held power nationally between 1801 and 1825. It was the direct antecedent of the present Democratic Party.


We are all Republicans.
--Thomas Jefferson

Or this, from the Library of Congress:


Creating the United States : Formation of Political Parties (https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/formation-of-political-parties.html)

James Madison (1751–1838), an Orange County, Virginia, planter shown in this portrait by Charles Willson Peale (1741–1827), was a strong proponent of a strong central government to replace the Articles of Confederation. Often credited with being the Father of the Constitution of 1787, Madison established the Jeffersonian-Republican Party with Thomas Jefferson and in 1809 succeeded him as president of the United States.

Years later, the Republican party of Madison and Jefferson split into two factions, the Democratic-Republicans headed by Andrew Jackson and the Whigs headed by Henry Clay.


White House: Andrew Jackson (https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/andrew-jackson/)

...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.

The Democratic-Republicans would simply come to be known as the Democrats, while a faction from within the Whig party would later be known as the Republican party.

So, in fact, BOTH the modern Republican party and the modern Democratic party are branches of the southern slave-holding Republican party founded by Madison and Jefferson.

Of course, any attempt to compare these modern parties with their historical antecedents is ridiculous. Whatever similarities they possess are largely superficial. But that hasn't stopped some from trying. Yet the facts will always be there, standing in their way. Poor souls.

[nathanbforrest45]

OK

Duly noted.

[Ethereal]

OK

Duly noted.

Indeed.

[MisterVeritis]

Kook alert.

[Ethereal]

Kook alert.
There is no need to announce yourself this way. We all know very well that you are a kook.

[nathanbforrest45]

I'm trying to understand this. The Democrats are really Republicans and the Republicans are really Democrats but were once really Republicans who became Democrats?

Who's on First?

[DGUtley]

Ok. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/democratic-party-racist-history-mona-charen/

[donttread]

kook alert.

wtf?

[MisterVeritis]

There is no need to announce yourself this way. We all know very well that you are a kook.
It is you. Go deeper than a few surface words. I know you can. I have seen you do it. Jefferson and Madison collaborated over many years. At the time there were two broad party threads, one republican the other anti-republican. The republicans then were for limited, representative government. The anti-republicans preferred a strong centralization of powers. The Constitution guaranteed its citizens a republican form of government.

The Republican party, on the other hand, began in the decade prior to the Civil War.

I believe you know this. I wonder why you chose to be dishonest. Honesty suits you better.

[MisterVeritis]

wtf?
I offer it as a public service. I know those like you won't go beyond a few surface words.

I am compelled to question Ethereal's honesty. I cannot say he is anti-American. His views are similar to those held by a majority of British-Americans prior to the Revolution. He opposes the United States of America generally. Nearly all colonists did as well.

[MisterVeritis]

Ok. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/democratic-party-racist-history-mona-charen/
Yes:

"The [Democratic] party’s history is pockmarked with racism and terror. The Democrats were the party of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, and that miserable terrorist excrescence, the Ku Klux Klan. Republicans were the party of Lincoln, Reconstruction, anti-lynching laws, and the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964. Were all Republicans models of rectitude on racial matters? Hardly. Were they a heck of a lot better than the Democrats? Without question."

[MisterVeritis]

I'm trying to understand this. The Democrats are really Republicans and the Republicans are really Democrats but were once really Republicans who became Democrats?

Who's on First?
This is what dishonest people will try to convince you to believe. I wonder about the motivation of such patently dishonest people.

[Chris]

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were the founders of the Republican party. They were also southern slaveholders.

These are simple facts that can be verified by Madison and Jefferson's own statements or, if that is too difficult for some, a basic entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica:





Or this, from the Library of Congress:



Years later, the Republican party of Madison and Jefferson split into two factions, the Democratic-Republicans headed by Andrew Jackson and the Whigs headed by Henry Clay.



The Democratic-Republicans would simply come to be known as the Democrats, while a faction from within the Whig party would later be known as the Republican party.

So, in fact, BOTH the modern Republican party and the modern Democratic party are branches of the southern slave-holding Republican party founded by Madison and Jefferson.

Of course, any attempt to compare these modern parties with their historical antecedents is ridiculous. Whatever similarities they possess are largely superficial. But that hasn't stopped some from trying. Yet the facts will always be there, standing in their way. Poor souls.


Ok. https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/democratic-party-racist-history-mona-charen/

Both are true. Rothbard in The Progressive Era documents this and how in the run up to the Progressive Era they swapped positions. They also swapped position on free trade and free markets and the size of the government.

[MisterVeritis]

Both are true. Rothbard in The Progressive Era documents this and how in the run up to the Progressive Era they swapped positions. They also swapped position on free trade and free markets and the size of the government.
Of course, it is nonsense.

[MMC]

I'm trying to understand this. The Democrats are really Republicans and the Republicans are really Democrats but were once really Republicans who became Democrats?

Who's on First?


:wink:

The term "Democratic-Republican" is used especially by modern political scientists for the first "Republican Party" (as opposed to the modern Republican Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) founded in 1854). It is also known as the Jeffersonian Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_Republicans).....snip~


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

[Captdon]

I offer it as a public service. I know those like you won't go beyond a few surface words.

I am compelled to question Ethereal's honesty. I cannot say he is anti-American. His views are similar to those held by a majority of British-Americans prior to the Revolution. He opposes the United States of America generally. Nearly all colonists did as well.

No, he did state the facts as they existed. The South did become Republican as the Democrats went all in for the left. Most of these Blue states used to be Republican until the people there went left.

He's not always wrong.

[Captdon]

This is what dishonest people will try to convince you to believe. I wonder about the motivation of such patently dishonest people.

In reality, all parties were racist in that no large group of whites cared about blacks or slavery outside the South.They were property in the South and not welcome outside the South. The North and West did not fight to free the slaves. Most white people had never seen a black.

[nathanbforrest45]

I offer it as a public service. I know those like you won't go beyond a few surface words.

I am compelled to question Ethereal's honesty. I cannot say he is anti-American. His views are similar to those held by a majority of British-Americans prior to the Revolution. He opposes the United States of America generally. Nearly all colonists did as well.

Only 20% of the colonist were in favor of independence. 20% were completely opposed and the other 60%, not unlike today, didn't care one way or the other.

[nathanbforrest45]

No, he did state the facts as they existed. The South did become Republican as the Democrats went all in for the left. Most of these Blue states used to be Republican until the people there went left.

He's not always wrong.


The Southern States were known as Dixiecrats until Reagan came to power. Until then if you wanted a chance to vote for your candidate in the general election you had to be a registered Democrat so you could vote in the Primary for the most conservative candidate. Reagan energized the Republican Party in the South.

[MisterVeritis]

No, he did state the facts as they existed. The South did become Republican as the Democrats went all in for the left. Most of these Blue states used to be Republican until the people there went left.

He's not always wrong.
The south became more Republican as it moved from racism. There was no flipping of the parties. In my opinion, the blue states moved left as the Democrats imported 50 million poor, dumb people from third world countries. Many of those people ended up in large cities. The white middle-class Republican voters were rendered irrelevant.

[nathanbforrest45]

In reality, all parties were racist in that no large group of whites cared about blacks or slavery outside the South.They were property in the South and not welcome outside the South. The North and West did not fight to free the slaves. Most white people had never seen a black.
It has long been said that White Southerners didn't like blacks as a group but liked individual blacks while the North liked blacks as a group but not as individuals.

[Tahuyaman]

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were the founders of the Republican party. .

Incorrect. The Republican Party was founded in 1854.

[Ethereal]

It is you. Go deeper than a few surface words. I know you can. I have seen you do it. Jefferson and Madison collaborated over many years. At the time there were two broad party threads, one republican the other anti-republican. The republicans then were for limited, representative government. The anti-republicans preferred a strong centralization of powers. The Constitution guaranteed its citizens a republican form of government.

The Republican party, on the other hand, began in the decade prior to the Civil War.

I believe you know this. I wonder why you chose to be dishonest. Honesty suits you better.
Your rejection of the facts is quite kooky. You should try to be less dishonest.

[Ethereal]

Incorrect. The Republican Party was founded in 1854.
lol

Okay, clown.

[MMC]

Incorrect. The Republican Party was founded in 1854.

Correct todays Repub party was founded in 1854.

[Mister D]

It has long been said that White Southerners didn't like blacks as a group but liked individual blacks while the North liked blacks as a group but not as individuals.
Insightful.

[Tahuyaman]

Correct todays Repub party was founded in 1854.
Only someone completely ignorant of history would claim Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party

[RadioGod]

I offer it as a public service. I know those like you won't go beyond a few surface words.

I am compelled to question Ethereal's honesty. I cannot say he is anti-American. His views are similar to those held by a majority of British-Americans prior to the Revolution. He opposes the United States of America generally. Nearly all colonists did as well.
Mr.V, I don't believe it.... I...I....I... I think I agree with part of one of your posts? You are implying that the majority of the colonists were opposed to a United States of America? That implies they were tricked into dying for it en masse by the founders. Perhaps with the promise of liberty for the common man? The same common men who had no say in the formation of our government?

[MisterVeritis]

Mr.V, I don't believe it.... I...I....I... I think I agree with part of one of your posts? You are implying that the majority of the colonists were opposed to a United States of America? That implies they were tricked into dying for it en masse by the founders. Perhaps with the promise of liberty for the common man? The same common men who had no say in the formation of our government?
Yes. Prior to the revolution, the great majority of thee people had no interest in creating a united States of America.

[Chris]

Mr.V, I don't believe it.... I...I....I... I think I agree with part of one of your posts? You are implying that the majority of the colonists were opposed to a United States of America? That implies they were tricked into dying for it en masse by the founders. Perhaps with the promise of liberty for the common man? The same common men who had no say in the formation of our government?

The Constitution was counter-revolutionary.

[Peter1469]

Only 40-45% of the American colonists supporting the revolution. 20% were loyalists. The rest checked the "I don't know" box.

Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution))

[MisterVeritis]

Only 40-45% of the American colonists supporting the revolution. 20% were loyalists. The rest checked the "I don't know" box.

Link (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_(American_Revolution))
In my opinion, the author overstates support. He doubles it or more.

[Peter1469]

In my opinion, the author overstates support. He doubles it or more.

I was going to say that in my post. I think the patriots were under 10%.

[MisterVeritis]

I was going to say that in my post. I think the patriots were under 10%.
Yep. And the fighters were less than 2%.

[Mister D]

Knowing my disposition I think I would have been loyal to the crown. I would probably even have fought for it in a loyalist militia.

[Ransom]

Both fierce Neocon Imperialists as well. Colonialists. Especially Jefferson.

[RadioGod]

I think I am beginning to understand some of the forum members here. It's like some of the british loyalist genetics never disappeared. They get a warm, fuzzy feeling when they see an insane ruler bent on global dominion, and something in their dna resonates with it. No wonder Trump got elected.

[Ransom]

I think I am beginning to understand some of the forum members here. It's like some of the british loyalist genetics never disappeared. They get a warm, fuzzy feeling when they see an insane ruler bent on global dominion, and something in their dna resonates with it. No wonder Trump got elected.
Are you suggesting Ethereal has British loyalty in his DNA?

Our Founding Fathers were fierce Neocons. Our expansionism and imperialism on display in every museum across the country. The history book with the uncracked binding on Eth's shelving will also reveal much. I can offer some great reads if you'd like.

[RadioGod]

Are you suggesting Ethereal has British loyalty in his DNA?

Our Founding Fathers were fierce Neocons. Our expansionism and imperialism on display in every museum across the country. The history book with the uncracked binding on Eth's shelving will also reveal much. I can offer some great reads if you'd like.

My post had nothing to do with Ethereal. It was just an off-the-cuff remark to inspire the Trump supporters to send me some "love". But in all seriousness, if you have some reccommended reading, definitely post it. I will make a sincere effort to look at them, probably others will too.

[donttread]

I offer it as a public service. I know those like you won't go beyond a few surface words.

I am compelled to question Ethereal's honesty. I cannot say he is anti-American. His views are similar to those held by a majority of British-Americans prior to the Revolution. He opposes the United States of America generally. Nearly all colonists did as well.


I feel like his views support the Constitution and BOR's, ALL of it , not just the portions they like. Like say "common defense" vs "common offense"

[MisterVeritis]

I feel like his views support the Constitution and BOR's, ALL of it , not just the portions they like. Like say "common defense" vs "common offense"
Emotions shall have to do.

[spunkloaf]

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were the founders of the Republican party. They were also southern slaveholders.

These are simple facts that can be verified by Madison and Jefferson's own statements or, if that is too difficult for some, a basic entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica:





Or this, from the Library of Congress:



Years later, the Republican party of Madison and Jefferson split into two factions, the Democratic-Republicans headed by Andrew Jackson and the Whigs headed by Henry Clay.



The Democratic-Republicans would simply come to be known as the Democrats, while a faction from within the Whig party would later be known as the Republican party.

So, in fact, BOTH the modern Republican party and the modern Democratic party are branches of the southern slave-holding Republican party founded by Madison and Jefferson.

Of course, any attempt to compare these modern parties with their historical antecedents is ridiculous. Whatever similarities they possess are largely superficial. But that hasn't stopped some from trying. Yet the facts will always be there, standing in their way. Poor souls.

I think it's pretty dishonest of you to present American history in this way.

A more honest person would acknowledge that no political "party" is remotely similar to what it was in the 1700's and 1800's.

Your take on American history fails to explain a few things. For example, why white-nationalists hugely support Donald Trump and the right-wing Republican/Conservative party; and why the Confederate flag is so proudly displayed and supported by right-wing Conservative/Republican citizens.

[Ransom]

My post had nothing to do with Ethereal. It was just an off-the-cuff remark to inspire the Trump supporters to send me some "love". But in all seriousness, if you have some reccommended reading, definitely post it. I will make a sincere effort to look at them, probably others will too.
Undaunted Courage It's the story beginning in 1803 of the opening of the American West. The endeavor that sealed our sea to shining sea empire. We're after the fur trade. We're being pushed by the British. The Expedition chased by the Spanish. Jefferson purchases the Missouri River and it's on.

Lewis.....actually has a letter he reads to the Indians they encounter on the way. Some hostile, some not. The message is, you've a "New Father" now. And they'll be white men setting posts up and down your rivers, you can trade with us cause....uh...this is all ours now.

The testicular fortitude undaunted. Their guide a girl. A 15 year old pregnant girl. Amazing.

But the book begins with a great summary of America during Jefferson's Presidency. The state of affairs. The threat matrix. We are but a sliver of the North American Continent, the Louisiana Purchase nearly doubles our geography....and ends up quadrupling it. It's a thrilling read one of America's classics. IT will take you a week, give you a wealth of knowledge....

And hits on may themes often discussed in here. Capitalism. Imperialism. United States Founding Father philosophies. Actions. Military confrontations. Getting to the west coast in 1805, RadioGod, was harder than getting to the moon in 1969. Central North America one of the rare places on the earth that had not been explored. By we colonialists that is. A Black Man goes on the Expedition. York his name, he is Clark's slave. He fathered his way across Indian nations, the entire endeavor one of the most amazing in world history, forget what it did for this nation.

We were imperialist bastards. What we did to the Indian Nations dwarfs our record of racism in this country. We've sure much to not be proud of where colonialism is concerned, truth must be spoken to though.

[Ransom]

I think it's pretty dishonest of you to present American history in this way.

A more honest person would acknowledge that no political "party" is remotely similar to what it was in the 1700's and 1800's.

Your take on American history fails to explain a few things. For example, why white-nationalists hugely support Donald Trump and the right-wing Republican/Conservative party; and why the Confederate flag is so proudly displayed and supported by right-wing Conservative/Republican citizens.
It is a dishonest presentation of American history, I agree with you there. And his take also fails to address the murder of unborn children the Left so ardently supports. Or it's insistence on welfare and hand out programs that have devastated low income communities. And even when those low income communities opt for school choice so they're not trapped in failing schools, the Left ardently opposes that more inclined to support their union workers than actual children.

So, I know what you mean. I find much of the Left's agenda so heinous, a threat to national security, trapping hundreds of millions in government program dependence, creating poverty where there is so much potential, Democrats and the Left actually ruin lives. Steal souls. And Eth touched on none of that and I agree with you there are other issues. Issues pushed by the Left in here and elsewhere that are immoral and indecent....not to mention unpatriotic, treasonous, and traitorous.

now...were you saying something about a.....flag?

[RadioGod]

Undaunted Courage It's the story beginning in 1803 of the opening of the American West. The endeavor that sealed our sea to shining sea empire. We're after the fur trade. We're being pushed by the British. The Expedition chased by the Spanish. Jefferson purchases the Missouri River and it's on.

Lewis.....actually has a letter he reads to the Indians they encounter on the way. Some hostile, some not. The message is, you've a "New Father" now. And they'll be white men setting posts up and down your rivers, you can trade with us cause....uh...this is all ours now.

The testicular fortitude undaunted. Their guide a girl. A 15 year old pregnant girl. Amazing.

But the book begins with a great summary of America during Jefferson's Presidency. The state of affairs. The threat matrix. We are but a sliver of the North American Continent, the Louisiana Purchase nearly doubles our geography....and ends up quadrupling it. It's a thrilling read one of America's classics. IT will take you a week, give you a wealth of knowledge....

And hits on may themes often discussed in here. Capitalism. Imperialism. United States Founding Father philosophies. Actions. Military confrontations. Getting to the west coast in 1805, RadioGod, was harder than getting to the moon in 1969. Central North America one of the rare places on the earth that had not been explored. By we colonialists that is. A Black Man goes on the Expedition. York his name, he is Clark's slave. He fathered his way across Indian nations, the entire endeavor one of the most amazing in world history, forget what it did for this nation.

We were imperialist $#@!s. What we did to the Indian Nations dwarfs our record of racism in this country. We've sure much to not be proud of where colonialism is concerned, truth must be spoken to though.

I will find it and read it when I have a chance. This actually is the kind of thing I like to read. Sometimes I go through old newspapers online. Eye-opening and entertaining as hell. I was from Kennewick, WA, before I moved over to the puget sound area, so alot of my local history involved westward expansion, Lewis and Clark's expedition, and railroads. Thank you for the recommendation. I will read it in between attacking you in the forum:)

[Ransom]

Yes, 'attack' away, I actually enjoy the banter. It does offer so much into the American psyche at the time if the expedition.

I'm amazed at the diet. I'm to confess right now.....you don't feed me during the day....about two o'clock my body sends signals that if you do not feed it.....it's going to create issues for me. It's quite insistent. Makes noises even. Like threatening feed me or else noises.

These Dudes. Raft or walk thirty miles and eat shiit. Dog a favorite meal during the voyage, the Indians eat much dog. Mosquitoes....sizes we're not quite familiar with ate this expedition alive...literally. All of them had really bad Malaria, it wasn't known at the time how the disease was carried. Fascinating adventure. Under attack from Grizzly Bears. Hostile Indians. The Expedition has Indian orgies, Indian confrontations, the book reads like a fast paced adventure novel, enjoy.

[MisterVeritis]

I feel like his views support the Constitution and BOR's, ALL of it , not just the portions they like. Like say "common defense" vs "common offense"
The phrase "provide for the common defense" doesn't mean what you believe it means. It meant the federal government would have the authority to raise armies and navies, collect taxes to fund them, and through the President, direct their actions.

[Ethereal]

I feel like his views support the Constitution and BOR's, ALL of it , not just the portions they like. Like say "common defense" vs "common offense"
No worries. Mister V will explain to you why "defense" doesn't actually mean "defense". He has a very progressive view of the constitution.

[Ethereal]

I think it's pretty dishonest of you to present American history in this way.

A more honest person would acknowledge that no political "party" is remotely similar to what it was in the 1700's and 1800's.

Your take on American history fails to explain a few things. For example, why white-nationalists hugely support Donald Trump and the right-wing Republican/Conservative party; and why the Confederate flag is so proudly displayed and supported by right-wing Conservative/Republican citizens.
You're a bit confused, but it's not your fault. There is a larger context that you're not aware of.

[MisterVeritis]

No worries. Mister V will explain to you why "defense" doesn't actually mean "defense". He has a very progressive view of the constitution.
If the federal government does not have the Constitutional authority for offensive operations who does?

[Captdon]

I think it's pretty dishonest of you to present American history in this way.

A more honest person would acknowledge that no political "party" is remotely similar to what it was in the 1700's and 1800's.

Your take on American history fails to explain a few things. For example, why white-nationalists hugely support Donald Trump and the right-wing Republican/Conservative party; and why the Confederate flag is so proudly displayed and supported by right-wing Conservative/Republican citizens.

*sigh* A lot of people support Trump. WN's always support the least liberal. The far left supported HRC. That's ubderstandable.

The rebel flag is a symbol to white Southerners who were taught about the Lost Cause. You won't see it much anyplace else.

Now, why do Mexican-Americans wave the Mexican flag around without comment from the likes of you?

[MMC]

Only someone completely ignorant of history would claim Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican Party

Yeah that part listed Democrat.....throws some for a loop. But lets not forget there are those that are always looking to blame the US for something. Anything.....just so they can say the Love their country so much.

[donttread]

Emotions shall have to do.

The word "feel" is a softer confrontation tha "know". Just trying to reason with you. so tell me where exactly "E" departs from the Constitution on any regular basis.

[MisterVeritis]

The word "feel" is a softer confrontation tha "know". Just trying to reason with you. so tell me where exactly "E" departs from the Constitution on any regular basis.
If he wants to engage he will.

Not everyone understands the Constitution. I told you what provide for the common defense means. It does not mean what you think it does. The blame is yours.