Inner City Minister Sues Democratic Party For Reparations

[Seattle, January 3, 2005] On December 10th 2004, inner-city minister, Rev Wayne Perryman, - filed a class action Reparation lawsuit (in the United States District Court in Seattle Case No. CV04-2442), alleging “that because of their racist past practices the Democratic Party should be required to pay African Americans Reparations.” Perryman said “he based his case on the research that he gathered during the past five years while writing the three editions of his latest book:

In his 100-page brief, Perryman concludes that the past racist policies and practices that were initiated against African Americans by the Democratic Party - were no different than the policies and practices that were initiated by the Nazi Party against the Jews. In both situations millions of lives were destroyed (physically, mentally and economically).

*That in an effort to impede and or deny African Americans the same constitutional rights afforded to all American citizens, the Democratic Party established a pattern of practice by promoting, supporting, sponsoring and financing racially bias entertainment, education, legislation, litigations, and terrorist organizations from 1792 to 1962 and continued certain practices up to 2002.

*The Democrat’s 210 years of racist practices and cover ups not only negatively affected the entire Black Race; but these practices infected our entire nation with the most contagious and debilitating social disease known to mankind, racism. With landmark litigation, racist legislation and profane defamation, Democrats spent substantial amounts of money to produce racist campaign literature and to support racist entertainment (i.e. Jim Crow minstrel shows, stage plays “The Klansman,” and movies, “The Birth of a Nation”), all in an effort to prove to the world that African Americans were a racially inferior group that should be treated and classified as “property” and not as “citizens”.

*During the past 21 decades the Democrats successfully disguised and concealed their horrific acts against the African Americans by operating and committing these acts under the following aliases: “the Confederacy,” “Jim Crow,” “Black Codes,” the “Dixiecrats” and the “Ku Klux Klan.” Congressional records, historical documents, and the letters and testimonies from several brave black citizens revealed that these groups weren’t separate independent organizations, but were actual auxiliaries, divisions and/or the legislative efforts of the Democratic Party. The debates on the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 further revealed that these auxiliaries were committed to use every means possible to carry out the Democrat’s racist agenda of “White Supremacy,” including: lynchings, murders, intimidation, mutilations, decapitations and racially bias legislation and adjudication.

Perryman said, “To conceal the truth of their racist past (and as part of their effort to deceive the public), the Democratic Party made a conscience decision not to mention or disclose their true and complete history. (See exhibit 1). On their official website they failed to disclose that as a Party:

· Democrats opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make black citizens and give blacks the right to vote

· Democrats opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by U.S. Supreme Court

· Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson

· Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.

· Democrats started and supported several terrorist organizations including the Ku Klux Klan, an organization dedicated to use any means possible to terrorize African Americans and those who supported African Americans.”

Congressional records reveal that there wouldn’t be a question of Reparations today had Democratic President Andrew Johnson signed Senate Bill 60 (in 1866) which would have given each African American family 40 acres and a mule. Instead, Johnson vetoed the Bill and continued to block other key pieces of legislation that were designed to bring about equality for African Americans.

During the past 200 years, our government operated under a two party system which directed, developed and determined the policies of our country. Whatever the government did or did not accomplish (particularly as it pertained to African Americans), was directly related to which political party was in power at the time.

On April 29, 1861 Democratic President Jefferson Davis told his Democratic Confederate Congress that: “Under the supervision of the superior race, their [blacks’] labor had been so directed not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South... [which made the South one of the 16th wealthiest places in the world]; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three-fourth of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to wants of civilized man….”

Seven years later during the 1868 Presidential campaign, the Democratic Party’s campaign poster read: “This is a White Man’s Country - Let the White Men Rule.”

At the turn of the century (1913) Democratic Senator Ben Tillman said, “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank, and the only plank, namely, that this is a white man’s country, and white men must govern it.” From 1792 to 2002 (a period of 210 years), the Democratic Party carried out their proud tradition of white man rule by never electing a black man to the United States Senate from their party.

From 1792 to 1962 the Democratic Party was more commonly referred to as the Party of White Supremacy. This was the period when most of the damage was done to African Americans (economically, physically, socially and mentally). It was during this period that the Democrats exhausted every effort to promote slavery, destroyed Reconstruction and introduced Black Codes, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan.

The chronicles of history reveals that the Institution of Slavery and Jim Crow Laws weren’t promoted, protected and preserved by prominent individuals or by the federal government. They were promoted, protected and preserved by one political party and that party was the Democratic Party. Without their powerful political support, the institution of slavery and segregation would have ended long before 1865 and 1965.

The big question they had during the era of slavery was, whether or not a law or a person's actions violated the Constitution. The goal of the Democrats was to never allow the Constitution to be amended to include blacks as citizens. They wanted the freedom to treat African Americans as property (not as humans), without federal interference (this was their primary reason for fighting for their so-called States Rights). This was also the reason why Democrats were opposed to adding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution and why they praised and supported the Dred Scott Decision. Republicans rushed to have these Amendments added to the Constitution while the states that were under Democrat control were still separated from the Union. Republicans knew they would have a difficult time getting these Amendments passed if the Democrats from the Southern States came back and joined their congressional (Democrat) counterparts in the North.

During era of slavery and Reconstruction the Democrats were primarily interested in what they could do to Blacks, not what they could do for Blacks. From 1792 to 1962 the Democrats as a party, did not support or pass one law that was designed to give African Americans equality (in 170 years). With the exception of Truman’s efforts to integrate the military, every law that was introduced and passed by Democrats during this period was designed to hurt blacks, none were passed to help blacks. Perryman said, “Had the Democrats attempted to pass these same types of laws in 1864 that they claim credit for in 1964, the laws in 1964 would not have been necessary. Instead, in 1866 they passed Black Codes, in 1875 they passed Jim Crow Laws and in 1894 they passed the Repeal Act to repeal various pieces of previously passed Civil Rights legislation that were designed to give African Americans equality.

Perryman is quick to point out that the Democratic Party of today is not the same party of yesterday. However, like in the case of Michael Skakel (the Kennedy nephew who killed Martha Moxley), the Democrats like Michael Skakel must pay for their past actions. Perryman said, “The Skakels and the Moxleys were best friends and neighbors, but when the Moxleys learned that it was Skakel who murdered their daughter in 1975, they did not excuse his action because of the long term friendship. They made him pay, even though it was 25 years later. The same applies to the current relationship between the Blacks and Democrats. The Democrats should not expect Blacks to ignore the Democrat’s past racist practices, simply because of the current friendship.”

Perryman’s research and 100-page brief include the works of our nation’s top history and law professors including African American Historian, Professor John Hope Franklin, Princeton’s History Professor James McPherson, Professor Hebert Donald of Harvard, Professor Allen Trelease of North Carolina, and Professor Bernard Schwartz of New York University’s School of Law, plus congressional records and documentaries from PBS and the History Channel.

Perryman said, “since our experiences are similar to those inflicted on the Jews by the Nazi Party and since Reparations under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 affords Plaintiffs redress for past injuries; and amends for the wrong inflicted,” he asked the court for the following:

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on Plaintiff own behalf and on behalf of the Class, prays for judgment as follows:

1. Declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying Plaintiff as Class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

2. Awarding compensatory damages and rescission in favor of the Plaintiff and other members of the Class against the Defendant for the damages sustain as a result of wrongdoing of the defendants, together with interest thereon;

3. And as part of the compensatory damages the Plaintiffs recommends the following:

a. That an education fund be set up equivalent to the amount of $25,000 for every African American age 25 and younger that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit. The fund will be used solely for private school, college and trade tuitions and related educational costs.

b. That under the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which authorizes a public education fund, to educate the public of the wrongs that took place, the Plaintiffs ask for funding to fund a major motion picture and film series depicting all of the events that were highlighted in this lawsuit (and others not mentioned) and that this film and major motion picture be distributed to every public and private school in America to be viewed by students as a regular part of their history curriculum for the next 50 years. We further ask that the Lead Plaintiff and the consultants of his choice be paid a consulting fee including traveling and related expenses to help produce the motion picture and the film series. The consulting fee will be the standard consulting fee for similar types of major motion picture projects.

c. We ask that the Defendant pay each African American citizen ages 26- 35 that is currently alive as of the date of this lawsuit, a total sum of $25,000 in reparations, each adult ages 36-45, $45,000 in reparations, each adult ages 46-55, $50,000 in reparations each and each citizen ages 56 and older $100,000 in reparations.

4. Awarding Plaintiff fees and expenses incurred in this action, including reasonable allowance of fees for attorneys to administer the Class Action claim and appropriate consultant fees.

5. Granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and federal and state statutory provisions sued on hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Defendant’s investments, checking, savings or other assets so as to assure that Plaintiff has an effective remedy.

6. Ordering a formal apology to African Americans for the wrong that was committed during the duration of the Defendants’ tenure as an organization or political party.

7. Granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Man, I had to dig for this one. It is almost like someone wants to erase some history or something.

Seymour was Lincoln's nemeses. He opposed any anti slavery bill, the Union draft and was a New Yorker Governor.

I didn't see anything about present day practices that continue to keep some in slavery (black and white).
Paying welfare that allows the family to break up by having the govt be a substitute dad.
Lowering educational standards because "they just can't learn".
The Jesse Jackson "the mans out to get you" mentality that saps self reliance.
etc.

This is the same Party of Hate which fought Lincoln's efforts to preserve the Union. It continues its efforts to weaken and destroy America. Lies, deceit, corruption has been its story since 1792 and only a few of its leaders are worthy of praise while the vast majority are lying curs.

Just shut up and pay up my friend you don't have any rights to any of your personal property, money land ect. Have you not been paying attention to the supream cort. You will pay and you will smile while counting the money. You will pay, your grandchildren and great grandchildren will pay. They want and you pay wake up friend it's just how it is, and if you don't like it pay some more and when your money is gone you will give up your land, and when that's gone you will give your blood, and when that's gone you will hand over your country. YOU WILL PAY!

Cheery, aren't you?

I did some checking and I stand corrected, but not for the reason you stated. Johnson was a democrat but was elected on the Republican ticket of 1864 (unification ticket).

You are correct that at one time candidates from two parties could (and in fact before the advent of formal parties invariably were) the first and second finalists coming out of the Electoral College (hence Thomas Jefferson being John Adams VP). But I believe that was changed very early on since it became very obvious that the death of a president and his replacement by someone of an opposite political persuasion would cause havoc. Imagine the conspiracies that would be going on if John Kerry were Dubya's vice president.

In any case you and the author are correct that Andrew Johnson was a democrat.

It turns out I was wrong. Johnson was elected on the Republican ticket as Lincoln's veep, but was in fact a democrat from the south who remained loyal to the Union during the war.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.