Dear brother in Christ, indeed your remarks were "too brief, too cryptic." The hope motivating my reply was to draw out your thoughts; and so, I tossed you a "bouquet."
I don't think I "misconstrued" your remarks. I had written:
It is evident that America is now a house divided against itself.And you replied:
As it was in Lincolns day, has been ever since, and always was.I instantly caught the (unstated) reference to the history of human chattel slavery in America. I have long thought that the "three-fifths of a person" definition pertaining to some men is the Achilles Heel of the U.S. Constitution. From the beginning, as it were.
And you are right to say as it "always was." I daresay many, if not most, of the Founders were slaveowners. It is beyond question that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves.
Still, I find it interesting that, at the end of their lives, the two men made entirely different decisions about the future of their human captives.
By his Last Will and Testament, Washington emancipated all his slaves.
When Jefferson died, he left an estate $200K in the red (in then-current dollars a "King's Ransom," an astronomical sum in today's dollars). He had over 200 slaves employed in agriculture, and also in his manufacturing activities (he was a huge nail mogul for a time), some of whom were highly skilled and ingenious individuals.
So, what did his Last Will and Testament provide for with respect to these human captives?
Except for five, all were sold as his chattel property at auction, to help defray claims against his (bankrupt) estate.
The five who were emancipated are nowadays widely regarded as his own children, born of the slave Sally Hemmings (possibly the half-sister of his beloved wife, who died young). TJ did not emancipate Sally. [Possibly he had sound reasons for this.]
Just goes to show that there is a sort of difference in character between a Washington and a Jefferson.... To me, the former is almost a saint; and the latter, the very figure of the modern, post-Enlightenment Man.
So the background here goes deep. You pick up at the time when "Democrats were the Slavers," first made manifest in the Abolition Movement, which eventuated in the bloodiest and most costly war America has ever fought, the Civil War, made even more ugly by the fact that it was a war conducted between brothers.
In the aftermath, after the assassination of Lincoln, Republicans in Congress proposed Amendments to the federal Constitution guaranteeing, not only the emancipation of slaves, but also their right as U.S. citizens to enjoy all the benefits as equal members of American society, under just and above all equal laws.
The congressional Democrats fought the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments tooth and nail. But in the end, they could not stop their submission to the States for ratification. At least three-fourths of the States ratified them, as constitutionally mandated [Article V]. Voilà: new constitutional Law.
The response of the Democrat Party? Well. certainly it was not to bow their heads to the will of the supermajority of the sovereign States. Instead, it turned out that, wherever the Democrat party was dominant, a regime of "separate but equal," of Jim Crow law, even active terrorist repression (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan) became the norm for the next roughly one-hundred years.
So, my question is: Why, oh why, do so many contemporary Americans of (remote) African heritage seem to believe the Democrat Party is in the business of defending and advancing their interests???
A total cynic might say that "one can take the slave out of the 'plantation'; but that doesn't necessarily mean that one can ever take the 'plantation' out of the slave."
I feel sure that such a "conclusion" would leave some of our greatest, pre-eminent American thinkers such as the "magnificent" Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, Jr., et al. spinning in their graves....
I daresay this sort of thing "underclass" social dependency really got started with LBJ. Race relations were beginning to boil in his time. I gather he figured the best way to manage that situation to the benefit of his Party, of course was to recognize that Black Americans "were voters, too"; and thus "could be bought."
So today, we are still reaping the whirlwind of that constitutional Achilles Heel.... For even though the American People, through Civil War and Article V constitutional American legal process, have sought to rectify this early profound defect in our original Law, making "reparations" for it in multi-trillion-dollar expenditures of taxpayer money over the past five decades race relations in America seem to be going from bad to worse. And the economic status of many Black Americans has likewise gotten worse.
I guess we can thank our ersatz-president 0bama for that. He's a "transformational president" all right. But he is not a "healer"; he is a DIVIDER.
His main tactic is division leading to conquest. He uses the "Race Card" to move his "agenda" along.
He could care less about the genuine welfare and prospects of Black Americans. They are just other pieces to be played, in whatever game he's playing.
But THAT is a subject for another time!!!
Anyhoot, just some musings, my friend. If I offended you in what I wrote, please know that was never my intention; and that I apologize to you, and hope you will forgive me.
Thank you so very much for expounding your thoughts, dear brother in Christ!
I hope and pray that you and all your dear ones will have a Happy, Blessed, Merry Christmas!