Some very interesting research sources in the comment sections about the Democrat institution of slavery in the social, philosophical, political, and moral areas.
This is contrasted with slavery in the Biblical, Roman, Greek, and British sense.
If the planters controlled the lower South, they were likely to control the border States; and if they held these two sections together in national legislation, they were more than likely to guide the policy of the United States as a whole, for a compact minority with great wealth behind it and with leisure to devote to public affairs is almost certain to govern any country. That is, a population of two and a half millions in the lower South, with only a tenth of them directly connected with slavery, would guide a nation of twenty millions, ninetenths of whom were either outspoken or silent opponents of slavery and all it connoted.
Under these circumstances the leaders of the lower South undertook about 1840 to widen the area of slavery, that is, expand the cotton kingdom. John C. Calhoun, who controlled a large following in both political parties in the eastern end of the lower South, was an ardent advocate of expansion. The young Senator from Mississippi, Robert Walker, a leader of the Jackson wing of the planters on the Mississippi and a most adroit politician, was even more ardently in favor of annexations. After some years of maneuvering the two men effected a working alliance of the cotton men of the South and the farmers of the West: and in the Democratic convention of 1844 they committed thj Democratic party of the country to their ambitious policy. They defeated Henry Clay at the time when he had set his heart on the presidency and elected James K. Polk, who completed the annexation of Texas, declared war on Mexico, and took possession of New Mexico, California, and Oregon, in spite of the opposition of John Quincy Adams, Daniel Webster, Martin Van Buren, and Clay himself.
The success of the movement gave the planters such confidence in themselves and such prestige before the country that they felt themselves invincible. Southern and Western volunteers offered themselves with such enthusiasm and fought over the Mexican hills and mountains with such brilliancy that Southern members of Congress declared that the whole North American continent should be seized and held. Western Democrats like Senator Douglas of Illinois shared this vision of a con tinental republic. If Jefferson Davis, just entering political life from the Southwest, was set upon making an American lake of the Gulf of Mexico, Lewis Cass, speaking for the Northwest, was equally covetous of Canada.
…..Balked in their plans, the spokesmen of Mississippi, duly prompted by Calhoun, gathered in a mass meeting at Jackson, their state capital, early in December, 1849. They called upon the people of Mississippi and of the other planter States to arouse themselves and defend their property and their institutions. Later the Legislature of Mississippi elected delegates to a Southern convention to be held at Nashville, Tennessee, in June, 1850. All the other Southern States responded with more or less enthusiasm. If Congress refused to allow slavery to be carried into California or New Mexico, then — according to the threat often heard — the cotton States would secede.
This particular section was interesting, posted by Gringo.
Slavery was a Southern phenomenon because it was the de facto way the South’s aristocracy of Demoncrat Fers could have to keep their power and social authority.
During Jim Crow, that wasn’t really economic. Black labor could help Atlanta rebuild, but that wasn’t allowed because it would break the power balance. Northern money wasn’t accepted either for rebuilding. Most of the South’s post war deconstruction myth they talk about came about due to Democrat commands to go it alone, with neither black liberty, labor, political representation nor Republican Northern money or military security accepted as legit.
Knock down slavery, the Democrats put up Jim Crow. Knock down Jim Crow, the Democrats put up separate but equal. Knock down separate but equal, and the Democrats kill Luther Jr and Malcom X, to shut them up, and take over the black community and make the blacks vote Democrat.
Southerns sometimes mention that no more than 5% or even 2% of Southerners owned slaves. That included rich Indians and blacks who owned slaves too, perhaps. The cost… was either too high or there were other barriers.
I don’t disagree on the figures. It just shows that 2% of a people can control 99% of the people in a democracy. Rule for and by demons, demoncracy.
It’s like the conspiracy theorists over at Tea Party and INfowars thinking this country’s policy is run by 20,000 Marxists. It’s not like that would ever happen, right.
There were all kinds of white Southern aristocrats that wanted to change or reform the system. The system didn’t want to change. General Lee didn’t like slavery, the South told his As to shut up and sit down, his opinion wasn’t needed. Forest didn’t like the KKK, even though he founded a chapter to restore economic security in the South, because the South told his As to shut the hell up and sit down, they were going to lynch them some niggers.
98% of the Southern population never saw any of that, so they thought it was some alien problem and that everyone was doing their best to work out a solution (except the Republicans). Everyone thinks the Democrats are just another political party, that bipartisanship and compromises will “work out a solution”.
If only healthcare became affordable. If only technology would solve environmental and energy problems. If only. If technology solved those problems, the Democrats would make some more sh up the next day.
Starting on Page 53.
Click on the image embed for the page and then begin reading.
This is damning research. My own conclusions were pieced together from disparate clues and data points, but this research work ties in a lot of things I was unaware of.
The amount of social reinforcement and mind control used in the Old South to produce the social harmony that led to an entire society going to war based upon the command of 2% of their population, echoes something else I’ve read about.
Some more sources and comments on how current Democrat propaganda is the same as old Democrat propaganda.