This is Part II of a three-part series examining the historical use of terrorism by the Democrats as a tool to further its ideology.
SAN JOSE, CA, Dec. 18, 2016 — President Barack Obama’s perception of his overall efforts in fighting terrorism, in light of the more blatant and brutal terrorist attacks on American soil, show some type of delusion, self-deception, or a base of propaganda to portray his legacy of fighting terror more favorably. However, he is not the one who chooses how such a legacy is recorded in history. Currently, his words ring hollow. And with respect to history, the first part of this series of articles delves a bit into the foundations of the “Democratic” Party, and it indicates that Obama is actually just the latest leader of the Party willing to use force or terror to obtain, maintain, and retain (despite great cost) political power and control of the government.
The foundation of the “Democratic” Party demonstrates a pattern of denial of terror tactics, a “reinterpretation” of flagrant acts of terrorism, as well as the outright use of terror for political gain, and such a foundation of terror and violence can explain a great deal about the evolution of the Party. Historically, the Party has proven itself comfortable with the blatant use of terror or violence, either overtly, as in the case of President Andrew Jackson using the United States Army to force American Indians off their ancestral lands, or covertly through the efforts of a white southern power structure of defeated Democrats via the Ku Klux Klan.
Much more dramatic, however, than the development of the KKK, is the willful intent aimed at the destruction of the nation.
The conception and the principles at the core of the Confederate States of America originated from a political philosophy antithetical to the causes for which the United States of America had been founded. Freedom for those in the elitist white southern power structure was only for the white race, and did not apply to blacks or Indians, or whomever threatened the white power structure. This power base had existed before the creation of the nation – at least 160 years – as early as the development of Jamestown, Virginia, in the mid-1600s. The conditions in the South were conducive for labor intensive farming, and slavery proved to be an economic institution extremely beneficial to the large plantation owners, and eventually the political party of choice for slave owners eventually became the Jacksonian Democrats.
The great grandaddy of the Democrat Party was not only an Indian fighter, he owned a large plantation and a slave owner. It may be embarrassing and why Democrat leaders of today try to do a “Lincoln makeover” to re-make Democrat history in the image of “Honest Abe.” In recent years, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have tried to appear Lincoln-esque in some way. Senator Obama tried in 2007 as he announced his candidacy for president at the Old State House in Springfield, Illinois. It seemed to work for Obama, so Hillary Clinton tried to use the same historical stage during her campaign, on July 13th of this year. Clinton attempted to link herself to the great president, in a likely attempt to appear clever and more aligned with Mr. Lincoln than the current “Party of Lincoln.”
Ms. Clinton used the historical stage to play off of Lincoln’s words about the country being a “house divided,” but it actually opened a door for greater understanding of Mr. Lincoln’s speech, and a better understanding of Jackson’s “Democratic” Party. It is doubtful if Clinton truly understood Mr. Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech. Nevertheless, Mr. Lincoln, profoundly understood that America had been founded as a nation dedicated to freedom; but the existence and toleration of slavery meant that the ideals of the Founders had yet to be completed at the founding, as blueprints are only plans for the completed house.
Lincoln delivered his “House Divided” speech on June 16, 1858, after he had received the Republican Party nomination to run for the U.S. Senate seat for Illinois. However, even before he delivered his speech, many of his friends whose opinions he sought condemned his intended words. Yet, Lincoln was not afraid to tell the truth about how the United States had been divided from the beginning over the issue of slavery:
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.
Especially after Lincoln delivered this speech, the Republican establishment of his day – some of the “enlightened” leaders – criticized Lincoln for what he had said. They considered that he had been too honest – or not “politically correct.” The leaders were afraid that Democrat Stephen A. Douglas would twist his words against Lincoln. Many were dismayed that he had been so honest and brash – even “impolite.” Much stronger conservative members of the party thought it would sink Lincoln into political oblivion. After so much criticism for delivering the speech, Lincoln was even more compelled to defend his intent:
My friends, this thing has been retarded long enough. The time has come when these statements should be uttered, and if it is decreed that I should go down because of this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth; let me die in advocacy of what is just and right.
Abraham Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech is one of his most famous speeches, and though many think that it was a prediction of the coming Civil War, Lincoln was speaking as honestly as he could about his understanding of American history. He was not making a prophecy. Lincoln truly grasped that tyranny had never been fully destroyed when the United States was created. He was stating a fact that the Union was not truly united from the beginning, and had been forced from one generation to the next to deal with the issue of slavery through one compromise after another.
Yet, the “Democratic” Party would not make a final compromise after Lincoln became the president in a legitimate election, and determined to make an incredibly dramatic rejection, not only of what Lincoln stood for, but what the Republic was intended to be. After the Democrats lost the election of 1860, instead of accepting the results of the election, Democrat leaders took the initiative to illegally separate from the United States of America, create a government that essentially rejected the ideals and values in the Declaration of Independence in order to retain the right to own human beings as slaves or private property. This is not the contemporary view of the American Civil War, but the Democrats in that time was attempting to violently end the United States of America as it was established at the founding.Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Communities Digital News
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.
Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.