I have to admit: I watched "Hillary's America" by Dinesh D'Souza which blames the democrats, (and democrat LEADERS,) throughout the history of this country for all the racism and social engineering. Inner city slums were designed to be plantations. Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood were influenced by the KKK (all dems) to cleanse the nation of "weeds". Andrew Jackson, a democrat, was pro-slavery and owned and harshly treated many slaves. At the time of the civil war, no Republicans owned slaves and were against slavery.
Is this movie based on propaganda or fact?
I have not seen that video but read of historic Democratic resistance to civil rights advancements from the beginning of racial freedom in America . That is all true. But the constant rhetorical platform of democratic social re-engineering has always Promised more to blacks and minorities . Thus the dedication and naiveté and liberal pundits for todays popularity.
It all comes down to people NOT knowing their history ! Check it out !
Furthermore, those who can't do, teach. When kids graduate from college they have a degree in the subject they enjoyed just to get through school, such as Philosophy, Art or PE. Then they get out and realize they need skills of some sort. They realize they should go back to school to get another degree in Business, Economics or Accounting. But, they have squandered all their money on dorm-life and the university, so end up with a low paying job they hate, lose interest in working altogether and … vote for the one offering handouts ...
Just the worst sort of bs.
We are not talking about the 19th century, this is the 21st. There was no GOP party before 1854, so talk of Jackson owning slaves and being affiliated with a completely different Democratic Party, long before the existence of the GOP must be considered irrelevant for comparison purposes. More silly arguments and inane points of reasoning from desperate people.
But, they will lose all the same as they have always....
Not all of us were born yesterday...
Lincoln brought forth the Republican party.
"The Whig Party was a political party active in the middle of the 19th century in the United States. Four Presidents belonged to the Party while in office. Along with the rival Democratic Party, it was central to the Second Party System from the early 1830s to the mid-1850s. It originally formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson (in office 1829–37) and his Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the Presidency and favored a program of modernization, banking and economic protectionism to stimulate manufacturing. It appealed to entrepreneurs and planters, but had little appeal to farmers or unskilled workers. It included many active Protestants, and voiced a moralistic opposition to the Jacksonian Indian removal policies. Party founders chose the "Whig" name to echo the American Whigs of 1776, who fought for independence. "Whig" meant opposing tyranny. Historian Frank Towers has specified a deep ideological divide:
'Democrats stood for the 'sovereignty of the people' as expressed in popular demonstrations, constitutional conventions, and majority rule as a general principle of governing, whereas Whigs advocated the rule of law, written and unchanging constitutions, and protections for minority interests against majority tyranny.' "
That is correct
In reference to your last paragraph, I think that the stand of both Whigs and Democrats were important.
Jackson did start a precedent by making the franchise available to all white males over 21. This was a departure from the previous qualification of 'property owner'. The Whigs probably were the elitists that saw a danger in any form of universal suffrage, as a check to the rising influence of the 'rabble'.
I tell conservatives time and time again, that the ideological and political orientations of the democrats and GOP, have changed over time. The same party that was pro-slavery during the ante-bellum era, is the same one that, today, wants to insure that the voting rights of all is respected.
"The Whigs probably were the elitists that saw a danger in any form of universal suffrage, as a check to the rising influence of the 'rabble'."
No, they were not. That is what you are surmising based on NUTHIN' at ALL.
Based upon reading the same material you read. Do you think that there was no resistance to expanding the suffrage? From where do you think the resistance came from?.
I stand corrected, it appears that the drive to expand the suffrage was not completely characterized by Whig resistance but by elites there were not affiliated with any particular party. I will investigate further.
The Dems did not want the blacks to vote. The Dems of the South. The Dems of the KKK, specifically.
"The first Klan flourished in the Southern United States in the late 1860s, then died out by the early 1870s. It sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era, especially by using violence against African American leaders. With numerous chapters across the South, it was suppressed around 1871, through federal law enforcement. Members made their own, often colorful, costumes: robes, masks, and conical hats, designed to be terrifying, and to hide their identities"
The democrats were a pro-slavery party, of course they wanted to restrict the franchise to whites only. That was the Democratic Party of our great, great, great grandfathers. That is not the attitude nor persona today. So when I compare and contrast the differences in the two political parties,TODAY, has my consuming interest.
The movie is about the past. It attempts to convince people it is better to be Republican than Democrat. Actually, there are myths about both parties aren't there? We belive things about the other that may or may not be true!
Democrats are STILL a pro -slavery party , look at the inner cities that democrats have OWNED for eight decades and more in America , Look at and examine how they keep the black vote in America , the promise of actual economic advancement --------And the not so silent delivery of social entitlement programming ? Not the fault of democrat leaders ....who then ?
Who's feet do you lay that blame at ?
"The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress on May 28,1830, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, who signed it into law two days later. The law authorized the president to negotiate with southern Indian tribes for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their ancestral homelands.
The act enjoyed strong support from the non-Indian peoples of the South, who were eager to gain access to lands inhabited by the southeastern tribes."
The best place to watch online movies with HD quality is
by Onusonus 4 years ago
This is an actual plaque hanging at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago. The excuses given from the Liberals who made this are a wide stretch of the imagination.
by Charles James 5 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?
by ahorseback 2 weeks ago
It's always interesting and educational to get one more lesson in true-shake your head- hypocrisy with Democrats and their Adopt --a --Hero campaign , already with the death of Sen.John McCain they have postured , I say postured because it so fits democratic ideology , towards McCain as...
by Brenda Durham 5 years ago
Where is it?and What is it?Is it now the Activist Party?The Homosexual Party?The Vengeance Party?The Obama Worshippers Party?There seems to be little semblance left of what it used to be. Before 2008, it still held to at least SOME core moral values and SOME sense of manners. ...
by Hxprof 2 years ago
What is the likelihood of the Democratic Party imploding if Hillary Clinton is nominated?With Bernie Sanders clearly gaining popularity among party voters, would the nomination of Clinton split the party?
by Origin 8 years ago
I thought about this years back, because it seems like a lot of people vote for whatever their political party is voting for, even though they may not entirely agree with it. What's your thoughts? Do you think if political parties didn't exist that governments would be better off? With that said,...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|