How many here knew that one of the founders of the Republican party took one of the strongest stands against slavery in this country because of his Christian faith - and was beaten by a Congressman and never fully recovered - dying on March 11, 1874 - having never fully recovered from that beating.
Amazing facts - did you know about Charles Sumner, US Senator, whose strong stand against slavery in the USA resulted in a Congressman from SC beating him over the head with a cane? And that Charles Sumner equated the need to end slavery in America to the deliverance of the children of Israel from their enslavement by the Egyptians? And that Charles Sumner was one of the founders of the Republican Party?
Ping some others and tell somebody today - African Americans need to join the Republican Party TODAY. It is our heritage of ending slavery that they can best align themselves with - not the enslaving “Great Society” party of the LBJ led Democrats.
Democrats were allowed to murder even then as they both for slavery.
Second, Brooks was the "Amy Bishop" of his time.
"Born in Roseland, Edgefield County, South Carolina, he was the son of Whitfield and Mary Parsons-Carroll Brooks.
Brooks attended South Carolina College (now known as the University of South Carolina)
but was expelled just before graduation for threatening local police officers with firearms."
Third, note the great wisdom of Ben Franklin (relevant to Obama):
“There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of
Pharaoh — get first all the people’s money, then their lands, and then make them and
their children servants forever. It will be said that we do not propose to establish kings. I
know it. But there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government. It sometimes
relieves them from aristocratic domination. They had rather have one tyrant than 500. It
gives more the appearance of equality among citizens, and that they like. I am
apprehensive — therefore — perhaps too apprehensive — that the government of these
States may in future times end in a monarchy [not called a monarchy but an executive
with monarchial powers]. But this catastrophe, I think, may long be delayed, if in our
proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction and tumult, by making
our posts of honor places of profit. If we do, I fear that, though we employ at first a
number and not a single person, the number will in time be set aside, it will only nourish
the fetus of a king (as the honorable gentleman from Virginia very aptly expressed it),
and a king will the sooner be set over us.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
According to websites New York Historical Society (http://www.slaveryinnewyork.org/about_exhibit.htm) and NYSenate.gov (http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/api/1.0/html/bill/S4738A), slavery was not abolished in New York State until 1827.
Legislation for the gradual abolition of slavery began in 1799, but the emancipation of all slaves did not become law until July 4, 1827.
Even so, until 1841, it remained legal for slave owners to bring slaves into New York and keep them there, in slavery, for as long as nine months. This was abolished in 1841 under the leadership of Governor William Seward, one of the founders of the Republican Party.
We praise the liberty given to the slaves, and also some (because there is disagreement here) also praise Abraham Lincoln for carrying it through -- although it came at the expense of the 10th Amendment, States Rights.
I believe that at a later time, slavery would have ceased to be an issue and something that would be allowed to continue in the South, given time and the economics of the situation.
If that had been allowed to progress, perhaps the 10th Amendment would have remained functionally intact. As it stands now, it's been somewhat limited in practice as an outgrowth of the Civil War and of what Abraham Lincoln did in order to keep the Union intact.
Some would have preferred that the Union not have been kept intact, the South go its own way, and the 10th Amendment remain intact -- which would have then, perpetuated slavery for a while longer, until it became less viable, economically.
The time frame would have been different for "freedom" if it had been allowed to go that way, taking a lot longer, and that would have been no consolation to those who were not free -- but for many that I see posting here, having the 10th Amendment "cut down" in actual practice and having never "recovered" from that time -- they perhaps think it was too high a price to pay.
Those are the conflicts of life that we have to deal with.
While I think that freedom for the slaves was very important, I also think that the 10th Amendment is important -- and -- I also think keeping the Union intact is important. Unfortunately, in "real life" -- all these things don't always work together in harmony.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks Freedom'sWorthIt. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
More accurately, it was Sumner's personal insults to Brooks' uncle, the elderly and feeble Senator from SC, in a Senate speech attacking slavery and its defenders that precipitated the attack.
I have no respect for Brooks, who admitted he intentionally attacked Sumner while he was seated in a bolted down desk and chair so he couldn't effectively defend himself.
But it's misleading to imply that it was Sumner's stand against slavery, as such, that led to the assault.