Yes, By All Means, Let’s Ban the Democrat(ic) Party

You may have recently read a piece similar to this by Jeffrey Lord, or likewise, an older piece by Daniel Greenfield. However, given recent events, some details not discussed by Mr. Lord and Mr. Greenfield and the fact that I spent some time on the history of the Democrat Party in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, the idea of banning the party of slavery deserves more attention.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Republican Party controlled the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the presidency. Sensing the beginning of the end to the institution of slavery in the U.S., Democrat-controlled states began to secede from the Union. South Carolina was first in December of 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia followed in January of 1861. Tellingly, in their secession declarations, among the list of grievances, virtually every southern state referenced the election of Lincoln and the threat he and his party presented to the institution of slavery.

South Carolina declared,

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

Alabama’s secession document read:

[T]he election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republican Party], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama…is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security…

As the fifth state to secede, Georgia also cited the election of Lincoln and the Republicans:

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [the republicans] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [who voted to secede]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

The Confederate States of America was formed at the Montgomery Convention in February of 1861. For the southern states—and anyone else in the world paying attention—the agenda of the newly formed (and electorally victorious) Republican Party was clear. From the creation of the Republican Party, every party platform that mentioned slavery forcefully denounced it. After the infamous Dred Scott ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, the subsequent Republican platform strongly condemned the ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. Tellingly, the corresponding Democrat platform praised the Dred Scott ruling and condemned all efforts to end slavery in the U.S.

The Republican Party platform of 1856 read,

That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

On the other hand, every Democrat Party platform from 1840 to 1860—six consecutive—was in support of slavery. Likewise, as Mr. Lord notes, “The Democratic Party opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.” If left-wing social justice “warriors” want to tear down the symbols of slavery in America, none is bigger than the Democrat Party.

But there are other reasons for tearing down the party of slavery. Slavery was a terrible sin that nearly destroyed the United States of America. Likewise, tens of millions of Americans today selfishly cling to immoral behaviors that threaten to destroy our nation. As was the case with slavery, and again because of foolish judges who are blind to the laws of the Law Giver, many of these wicked behaviors have the protection of U.S. Law. And just as was the case in the 18th century, only one major political party today—the Democrat Party—has given political cover and endorsement to the immorality that plagues America.

In a moral and just society, the killing of the unborn and the war on marriage and the family would cease. (Along with tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, why isn’t the left seeking to expunge any and all references to the racist eugenics apologist—who addressed the KKK and spoke fondly of Stalinist Russia—Margaret Sanger?) In a moral and just society, there would be no debate about who is a man and who is a woman. In a moral and just society, if a man refused to work, politicians—in an effort to buy votes—would not rush to feed him.

In a moral and just society, instead of clamoring for the removal of any reference to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the like, protestors should demand that rainbow-covered crosswalks that glorify sexual sin be painted over (or at least be adorned with Scripture to denote the rainbow’s true meaning). In a moral and just society, virtually everything the modern left stands for—from abortion to the welfare state, wealth redistribution, sexual perversions, gender lies, the destruction of marriage, and so on—would be banned.

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com