Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[daveman]

The truth is the democrat party

does not exist. There is no such party in the U.S., or anywhere in the world AFAIK, as the Democrat Party.

 

[Jroc]

LOL touched a nerve there, didn't I? But if you think that's true, given that black people vote Democratic in overwhelming margins, you must also think black people are imbeciles, which means you are a racist, which means I stand by what I said.

I'd have voted for Abraham Lincoln. You would not.

Abraham Lincoln stood for individual liberty. Democrats stood and still stand for enslavement. Do a little research then get back to me, or you can always read through this thread, that’s what it’s here for, ignorant people such as yourself.

 

[Dragon]

Abraham Lincoln stood for individual liberty.

That depends on who you ask, doesn't it? He stood (weakly) for the individual liberty of African-Americans not to be slaves, but squarely against the liberty of slave owners to enjoy their property. He was also against the liberty of the states to secede from the Union, and committed quite a few violations of individual liberty by unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, compelling Kentucky and Maryland to stay in the Union at gunpoint, closing down dissenting newspapers, and instituting the United States' first conscription.

Fact is, during those same decades in which the Republican Party racked up that glorious heritage of freeing the slaves and standing for racial equality and civil rights, it was also the party of Big Government. Republicans consistently expanded government spending more than Democrats did, and imposed high tariffs and direct corporate subsidies. Not only that, but the nation's first modern liberal president was a Republican -- Theodore Roosevelt. When the Democrats jumped on that bandwagon during the Wilson era, they were playing me-too.

The key to understanding all this is that the Democrats during this time were the party of the South. From before the Civil War until the 1960s, a period of over a hundred years, the Democratic candidate for president almost always won the South, whether he won or lost the election. (He usually lost.) In the 1960s, the Democrats threw Southern whites under the bus. Over the next decade or so, the Republicans changed their approach to just about everything in order to gain the voters that the Democrats had abandoned. As they did, they gained the South -- and lost the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, which used to be Republican strongholds.

The GOP is not the party it was back in the days of glory. It's not too far wrong to say that it has become what the Democrats used to be, while the Democrats have become what the Republicans were. And that is why black voters, who once voted consistently Republican, now vote consistently Democratic. They haven't changed. The parties have.

 

[Jroc]

Abraham Lincoln stood for individual liberty.

That depends on who you ask, doesn't it? He stood (weakly) for the individual liberty of African-Americans not to be slaves, but squarely against the liberty of slave owners to enjoy their property. He was also against the liberty of the states to secede from the Union, and committed quite a few violations of individual liberty by unconstitutionally suspending Habeas Corpus, compelling Kentucky and Maryland to stay in the Union at gunpoint, closing down dissenting newspapers, and instituting the United States' first conscription.

Fact is, during those same decades in which the Republican Party racked up that glorious heritage of freeing the slaves and standing for racial equality and civil rights, it was also the party of Big Government. Republicans consistently expanded government spending more than Democrats did, and imposed high tariffs and direct corporate subsidies. Not only that, but the nation's first modern liberal president was a Republican -- Theodore Roosevelt. When the Democrats jumped on that bandwagon during the Wilson era, they were playing me-too.

The key to understanding all this is that the Democrats during this time were the party of the South. From before the Civil War until the 1960s, a period of over a hundred years, the Democratic candidate for president almost always won the South, whether he won or lost the election. (He usually lost.) In the 1960s, the Democrats threw Southern whites under the bus. Over the next decade or so, the Republicans changed their approach to just about everything in order to gain the voters that the Democrats had abandoned. As they did, they gained the South -- and lost the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, which used to be Republican strongholds.

The GOP is not the party it was back in the days of glory. It's not too far wrong to say that it has become what the Democrats used to be, while the Democrats have become what the Republicans were. And that is why black voters, who once voted consistently Republican, now vote consistently Democratic. They haven't changed. The parties have.

Lincoln stood for the liberty of all people. One man does not have the right to enslave another it is against our founding principles. Democrats are to this day enslaving people to government control, and the real conservative Republican still stands as Lincoln did, although there are some who are democrat lite. All the rest of your post is just a way for the Democrats to deflect the fact, and the facts are the Democrat party is the same party of Slavery, Lynching’s, Segregation those are facts, that is their history, and their shame...Oh one more thing there is no right in the Constitution to secede from the union that issue was not settled till the civil war

 

[Dragon]

Lincoln stood for the liberty of all people. One man does not have the right to enslave another it is against our founding principles.

Not against our founding document, though, which protected it in a number of since-voided passages.

"Rights" and "liberties" are not identical in meaning. A liberty is simply the ability to do something or to avoid something. A right is a liberty which we judge to be deserved or justified. It is therefore possible to stand for the rights of all people, but not to stand for the liberties of all people, and Lincoln certainly didn't.

Rights change as society's judgment changes. In 1789, when the Constitution was first ratified, the judgment that some people had a right to own others as slaves prevailed, and consequently that black people had no inherent right not to be slaves. Today, we think otherwise, condemn slavery, and believe that everyone has a right not to be a slave.

Liberties are objective, unlike rights. They don't change. The liberty not to BE a slave is incompatible with the liberty to OWN slaves. That's as true today as it was in 1789, and we have gained the first only by losing the second.

Liberty is a zero-sum game.

All the rest of your post is just a way for the Democrats to deflect the fact, and the facts are the Democrat party is the same party of Slavery, Lynching’s, Segregation

That's not a fact. It's bullshit. That the Democratic Party once engaged in or supported these things is of course true. That they still do is ridiculous. Nor in fact to the Republicans; they are not so blatant as that

But nonetheless, the GOP has become similar to what the Democrats used to be, in that they pander to the white male Southern vote, which has become their base and stronghold, through more subtle racism as well as authoritarianism and militarism. In holding the South, the Democrats used to adopt positions that lost them the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast in most elections.

Today, the Republicans do that. The territorial dominance of the parties has almost completely switched (except that the GOP retains dominance in the small-population mountain states) -- because the parties have switched positions almost completely down the line.

 

[Jroc]

The founding documents never protected slavery so I’m not really sure what you’re talking about. There are no pro slavery comments at all in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It is the Democrat party which has always and still enslaves people, liberty means we fail or succeed based on our own merits it is not the job of government to determine this.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzcddec5cug&feature=related]1865 Frederick Douglass Speech Produced By Leroy Hyter - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragon]

The founding documents never protected slavery so I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Article I, Section 2.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Article I, Section 9.

"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."

Article IV, Section 2.

The second quote protected the slave trade. The first gave extra political power (representation in Congress) on the basis of the number of slaves in a state. The third protected the right of property in slaves against laws in another state making slavery illegal.

The second quote expired on its own at the date provided. The first and third were voided by the 13th Amendment. However, at the time the Constitution was ratified, all three were in force.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB5sLh8ZusQ&feature=related]The US Constitution is an anti-slavery document (blacks are 3/5ths a man clause explained) audio up - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragon]

A video of someone denying the facts does not make them any less facts. The Constitution BECAME an anti-slavery document in 1865, with passage of the 13th Amendment. Before that, it was not one, and anyone's opinion to the contrary is bullshit.

EDIT: by the way, the 13th Amendment was a Republican accomplishment. Just thought I'd get that out there before you go off on another rant.

 

[Jroc]

A video of someone denying the facts does not make them any less facts. The Constitution BECAME an anti-slavery document in 1865, with passage of the 13th Amendment. Before that, it was not one, and anyone's opinion to the contrary is bullshit.

EDIT: by the way, the 13th Amendment was a Republican accomplishment. Just thought I'd get that out there before you go off on another rant.

Those are quotes from Frederick Douglas and from the federalist papers, from the men who debated, wrote ,and then ratified the constitution, nice try though you aren’t the first to try and fail on this thread…. Thanks for playing.

The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?

Frederick Douglass
March 26, 1860
A Speech Delivered in Glasgow, Scotland


It is a great national enactment done by the people, and can only be altered, amended, or added to by the people. I am careful to make this statement here; in America it would not be necessary. It would not be necessary here if my assailant had shown the same desire to be set before you the simple truth, which he manifested to make out a good case for himself and friends. Again, it should be borne in mind that the mere text, and only the text, and not any commentaries or creeds written by those who wished to give the text a meaning apart from its plain reading, was adopted as the Constitution of the United States. It should also be borne in mind that the intentions of those who framed the Constitution, be they good or bad, for slavery or against slavery, are so respected so far, and so far only, as we find those intentions plainly stated in the Constitution. It would be the wildest of absurdities, and lead to endless confusion and mischiefs, if, instead of looking to the written paper itself, for its meaning, it were attempted to make us search it out, in the secret motives, and dishonest intentions, of some of the men who took part in writing it. It was what they said that was adopted by the people, not what they were ashamed or afraid to say, and really omitted to say. Bear in mind, also, and the fact is an important one, that the framers of the Constitution sat with doors closed, and that this was done purposely, that nothing but the result of their labours should be seen, and that that result should be judged of by the people free from any of the bias shown in the debates. It should also be borne in mind, and the fact is still more important, that the debates in the convention that framed the Constitution, and by means of which a pro-slavery interpretation is now attempted to be forced upon that instrument, were not published till more than a quarter of a century after the presentation and the adoption of the Constitution.

These debates were purposely kept out of view, in order that the people should adopt, not the secret motives or unexpressed intentions of any body, but the simple text of the paper itself. Those debates form no part of the original agreement. I repeat, the paper itself, and only the paper itself, with its own plainly written purposes, is the Constitution. It must stand or fall, flourish or fade, on its own individual and self-declared character and objects. Again, where would be the advantage of a written Constitution, if, instead of seeking its meaning in its words, we had to seek them in the secret intentions of individuals who may have had something to do with writing the paper? What will the people of America a hundred years hence care about the intentions of the scriveners who wrote the Constitution? These men are already gone from us, and in the course of nature were expected to go from us. They were for a generation, but the Constitution is for ages. Whatever we may owe to them, we certainly owe it to ourselves, and to mankind, and to God, to maintain the truth of our own language, and to allow no villainy, not even the villainy of holding men as slaves — which Wesley says is the sum of all villainies — to shelter itself under a fair-seeming and virtuous language. We owe it to ourselves to compel the devil to wear his own garments, and to make wicked laws speak out their wicked intentions. Common sense, and common justice, and sound rules of interpretation all drive us to the words of the law for the meaning of the law. The practice of the Government is dwelt upon with much fervour and eloquence as conclusive as to the slaveholding character of the Constitution. This is really the strong point and the only strong point, made in the speech in the City Hall. But good as this argument is, it is not conclusive. A wise man has said that few people have been found better than their laws, but many have been found worse. To this last rule America is no exception. Her laws are one thing, her practice is another thing. We read that the Jews made void the law by their tradition, that Moses permitted men to put away their wives because of the hardness of their hearts, but that this was not so at the beginning. While good laws will always be found where good practice prevails, the reverse does not always hold true. Far from it. The very opposite is often the case. What then? Shall we condemn the righteous law because wicked men twist it to the support of wickedness? Is that the way to deal with good and evil? Shall we blot out all distinction between them, and hand over to slavery all that slavery may claim on the score of long practice? Such is the course commended to us in the City Hall speech. After all, the fact that men go out of the Constitution to prove it pro-slavery, whether that going out is to the practice of the Government, or to the secret intentions of the writers of the paper, the fact that they do go out is very significant. It is a powerful argument on my side. It is an admission that the thing for which they are looking is not to be found where only it ought to be found, and that is in the Constitution itself. If it is not there, it is nothing to the purpose, be it wheresoever else it may be. But I shall have no more to say on this point hereafter.

The very eloquent lecturer at the City Hall doubtless felt some embarrassment from the fact that he had literally to give the Constitution a pro-slavery interpretation; because upon its face it of itself conveys no such meaning, but a very opposite meaning. He thus sums up what he calls the slaveholding provisions of the Constitution. I quote his own words: — "Article 1, section 9, provides for the continuance of the African slave trade for the 20 years, after the adoption of the Constitution. Art. 4, section 9, provides for the recovery from the other States of fugitive slaves. Art. 1, section 2, gives the slave States a representation of the three-fifths of all the slave population; and Art. 1, section 8, requires the President to use the military, naval, ordnance, and militia resources of the entire country for the suppression of slave insurrection, in the same manner as he would employ them to repel invasion." Now any man reading this statement, or hearing it made with such a show of exactness, would unquestionably suppose that he speaker or writer had given the plain written text of the Constitution itself. I can hardly believe that the intended to make any such impression. It would be a scandalous imputation to say he did. Any yet what are we to make of it? How can we regard it? How can he be screened from the charge of having perpetrated a deliberate and point-blank misrepresentation? That individual has seen fit to place himself before the public as my opponent, and yet I would gladly find some excuse for him. I do not wish to think as badly of him as this trick of his would naturally lead me to think. Why did he not read the Constitution? Why did he read that which was not the Constitution? He pretended to be giving chapter and verse, section and clause, paragraph and provision. The words of the Constitution were before him. Why then did he not give you the plain words of the Constitution? Oh, sir, I fear that the gentleman knows too well why he did not. It so happens that no such words as "African slave trade," no such words as "slave insurrections," are anywhere used in that instrument. These are the words of that orator, and not the words of the Constitution of the United States. Now you shall see a slight difference between my manner of treating this subject and what which my opponent has seen fit, for reasons satisfactory to himself, to pursue. What he withheld, that I will spread before you: what he suppressed, I will bring to light: and what he passed over in silence, I will proclaim: that you may have the whole case before you, and not be left to depend upon either his, or upon my inferences or testimony. Here then are several provisions of the Constitution to which reference has been made. I read them word for word just as they stand in the paper, called the United States Constitution, Art. I, sec. 2. "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons; Art. I, sec. 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think fit to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding tend dollars for each person; Art. 4, sec. 2. 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 service or labour; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due; Art. I, sec. 8. To provide for calling for the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." Here then, are those provisions of the Constitution, which the most extravagant defenders of slavery can claim to guarantee a right of property in man. These are the provisions which have been pressed into the service of the human fleshmongers of America. Let us look at them just as they stand, one by one. Let us grant, for the sake of the argument, that the first of these provisions, referring to the basis of representation and taxation, does refer to slaves. We are not compelled to make that admission, for it might fairly apply to aliens — persons living in the country, but not naturalized. But giving the provisions the very worse construction, what does it amount to? I answer — It is a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding States; one which deprives those States of two-fifths of their natural basis of representation. A black man in a free State is worth just two-fifths more than a black man in a slave State, as a basis of political power under the Constitution. Therefore, instead of encouraging slavery, the Constitution encourages freedom by giving an increase of "two-fifths" of political power to free over slave States. So much for the three-fifths clause; taking it at is worst, it still leans to freedom, not slavery; for, be it remembered that the Constitution nowhere forbids a coloured man to vote. I come to the next, that which it is said guaranteed the continuance of the African slave trade for twenty years. I will also take that for just what my opponent alleges it to have been, although the Constitution does not warrant any such conclusion. But, to be liberal, let us suppose it did, and what follows? Why, this — that this part of the Constitution, so far as the slave trade is concerned, became a dead letter more than 50 years ago, and now binds no man’s conscience for the continuance of any slave trade whatsoever

The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery? by Frederick Douglass

 

[sealybobo]

Only Herman Cain and Allen Keys. But it is true. Rich Republicans don't care if you are black or white. Only thing that matters to them is money.

They don't even care about things like gays. Chaney's daughter is a lesbian and they still pushed an anti gay agenda but that was just to appeal to poor and middle class Republicans. They win over some of us with wedge issues like god, gays and guns. Sprinkled with racism and now feminism.

 

[Dragon]

Those are quotes from Frederick Douglas and from the federalist papers, from the men who debated, wrote ,and then ratified the constitution, nice try though you aren’t the first to try and fail on this thread…

Dude, as much as I admire Douglas and Madison, and admire the intelligence and personal character of Hamilton (while reacting to his elitism with dismay), the actual TEXT of the Constitution is far better evidence than anything these men had to say about it in the way of trying to persuade the State of New York to ratify it and/or pushing the cause of abolition.

That actual text I have already quoted to show that the Constitution, as originally ratified,

1) Granted extra representation in Congress based on the possession of slaves, thus bolstering the political influence of slave owners;

2) Forbade any law that restricted the slave trade for a period of years after ratification; and

3) Mandated that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, regardless of the laws in any state to which they escaped.

Now I'm sorry, but a document that does these things cannot be called "anti-slavery" by any honest and knowledgeable person. Actually, I don't believe that the authors of the Federalist ever claimed that. Douglass may have, but if so it was, well, basically a lie -- a propaganda statement meant to persuade people of his time to get behind emancipating the slaves. A lie in a good cause, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless.

If the Constitution were really an "anti-slavery" document, it would not have been necessary to amend it in order to outlaw slavery.

 

[Jroc]

Those are quotes from Frederick Douglas and from the federalist papers, from the men who debated, wrote ,and then ratified the constitution, nice try though you aren’t the first to try and fail on this thread…

Dude, as much as I admire Douglas and Madison, and admire the intelligence and personal character of Hamilton (while reacting to his elitism with dismay), the actual TEXT of the Constitution is far better evidence than anything these men had to say about it in the way of trying to persuade the State of New York to ratify it and/or pushing the cause of abolition.

That actual text I have already quoted to show that the Constitution, as originally ratified,

1) Granted extra representation in Congress based on the possession of slaves, thus bolstering the political influence of slave owners;

2) Forbade any law that restricted the slave trade for a period of years after ratification; and

3) Mandated that escaped slaves be returned to their owners, regardless of the laws in any state to which they escaped.

Now I'm sorry, but a document that does these things cannot be called "anti-slavery" by any honest and knowledgeable person. Actually, I don't believe that the authors of the Federalist ever claimed that. Douglass may have, but if so it was, well, basically a lie -- a propaganda statement meant to persuade people of his time to get behind emancipating the slaves. A lie in a good cause, to be sure, but a lie nonetheless.

If the Constitution were really an "anti-slavery" document, it would not have been necessary to amend it in order to outlaw slavery.

"Dude" the pieces were put in place to eventually end slavery. There was no way to end it at the time the Constitution was written or we would not have a country. Sorry but I'll take Douglas’s opinion over yours… Thanks again

 

[Dragon]

"Dude" the pieces were put in place to eventually end slavery. There was no way to end it at the time the Constitution was written or we would not have a country.

I'm aware of the political realities at the time. I'm not saying it SHOULD have been anti-slavery, or that it realistically COULD have been anti-slavery. All I'm saying is that in actual fact, it WAS NOT. As for the pieces being in place, I can cite about 600,000 dead soldiers to show to the contrary. A civil war is not a legitimate "piece" towards any end. That it happened is definitive proof that no legal and nonviolent path to emancipation existed.

Sorry but I'll take Douglas’s opinion over yours… Thanks again

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are using a logical fallacy. My opinion happens, as I have proven above, to be true. Therefore, if Mr. Douglass disagreed, he was -- provably -- wrong. Q.E.D.

I suggest you stop blindly relying on authority (when it's convenient for you) and start thinking for yourself. That's what your brain is there for.

 

[Jroc]

I'm aware of the political realities at the time. I'm not saying it SHOULD have been anti-slavery, or that it realistically COULD have been anti-slavery. All I'm saying is that in actual fact, it WAS NOT. As for the pieces being in place, I can cite about 600,000 dead soldiers to show to the contrary. A civil war is not a legitimate "piece" towards any end. That it happened is definitive proof that no legal and nonviolent path to emancipation existed.

As I said, secession was not addressed in the constitution. Individual liberty was, slavery could not continue to exist under our founding principles, and yes the framers knew over time slavery would be abolished.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are using a logical fallacy. My opinion happens, as I have proven above, to be true. Therefore, if Mr. Douglass disagreed, he was -- provably -- wrong. Q.E.D.

I suggest you stop blindly relying on authority (when it's convenient for you) and start thinking for yourself. That's what your brain is there for.

Umm....Ok.....So relying on the discussions at the time should be not considered when forming an opinion? You don't make any sense. Some people are just destine to stay ignorant ..

 

[Dragon]

As I said, secession was not addressed in the constitution. Individual liberty was, slavery could not continue to exist under our founding principles, and yes the framers knew over time slavery would be abolished.

Individual liberty was NOT addressed in the Constitution. Specific rights that could perhaps be interpreted as slanting that way were, but then, so was slavery, and it was protected. Clearly, equal rights were not anticipated for black people, Native Americans, women, immigrants, poor people -- really, the only individual rights protected by the Constitution at its ratification were those of white male citizens who owned substantial amounts of property.

Umm....Ok.....So relying on the discussions at the time should be not considered when forming an opinion?

The fallacy is not considering such discussions, but rather holding views expressed in them as automatically right as to fact -- especially when we have clear evidence to the contrary at hand.

Authorities may be wrong, and when it comes to constitutional law Frederick Douglass wasn't even an authority, so you've engaged in two forms of the authoritarian fallacy: you've taken for an authority a man who lacks the credentials and knowledge to be one, and you are improperly shutting down all consideration of the possibility that he could be wrong.

 

[Jroc]

Individual liberty was NOT addressed in the Constitution. Specific rights that could perhaps be interpreted as slanting that way were, but then, so was slavery, and it was protected. Clearly, equal rights were not anticipated for black people, Native Americans, women, immigrants, poor people -- really, the only individual rights protected by the Constitution at its ratification were those of white male citizens who owned substantial amounts of property.

I invite you to point out where it says that. More liberal BS along with the rest of your liberal stupidity. Is Lincoln an authority? maybe not in your mind.

Mr. Lincoln's noble and impressive apostrophe to the Declaration of Independence. This was truly one of the finest efforts of public speaking I ever listened to. It gave to his auditors such an insight into the character of the man as ought to carry him into the Senate on a great surge of popular affection." He then quoted Mr. Lincoln, who said the Declaration of Independence:

...was formed by the representatives of American liberty from thirteen States of the confederacy — twelve of which were slaveholding communities. We need not discuss the way or the reason of their becoming slaveholding communities. It is sufficient for our purpose that all of them greatly deplored the evil and that they placed a provision in the Constitution which they supposed would gradually remove the disease by cutting off its source. This was the abolition of the slave trade. So general was conviction — the public determination — to abolish the African slave trade, that the provision which I have referred to as being placed in the Constitution, declared that it should not be abolished prior to the year 1808. A constitutional provision was necessary to prevent the people, through Congress, from putting a stop to the traffic immediately at the close of the war. Now, if slavery had been a good thing, would the Fathers of the Republic have taken a step calculated to diminish its beneficent influences among themselves, and snatch the boon wholly from their posterity? These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: 'We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows. They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. The erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages. Wise statesmen as they were, they knew the tendency of prosperity to breed tyrants, and so they established these great self-evident truths, that when in the distant future some man, some faction, some interest, should set up the doctrine that none but rich men, or none but white men, were entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, their posterity might look up again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew the battle which their fathers began — so that truth, and justice, and mercy, and all the humane and Christian virtues might not be extinguished from the land; so that no man would hereafter dare to limit and circumscribe the great principles on which the temple of liberty was being built.8

http://www.mrlincolnandthefounders.org/inside.asp?ID=1&subjectID=1

 

[regent]

The Republican party had to choose, the poor or the rich, they could not support both. Repubilcans went to the money.

 

[Dragon]

I invite you to point out where it says that.

I already did. The Constitution protected slavery, and that's enough right there.

Is Lincoln an authority? maybe not in your mind.

He could be, but it depends on whether he is speaking at any given time as a lawyer or as a politician. In any case, the quote you presented is discussing the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

[Jroc]

I invite you to point out where it says that.

I already did. The Constitution protected slavery, and that's enough right there.

Is Lincoln an authority? maybe not in your mind.

He could be, but it depends on whether he is speaking at any given time as a lawyer or as a politician. In any case, the quote you presented is discussing the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Well I'm going to leave it there for now because we are slightly off topic your posts just shows the working of the liberal mind and it's view of this country and it's founding.