Posted on 04/28/2018 9:05:05 AM PDT by LibWhacker
James Wallace was born on March 14, 1818 to a prominent Dorchester County family in Cambridge, Maryland. He entered Dickinson College with the class of 1840 in the autumn of 1836. He was elected to the Belles Lettres Society and graduated with his class in the early summer of 1840. He returned to Cambridge and studied law, gaining admittance to the Maryland bar in 1842 and opened a successful practice.Not so fast, D-Dawg, Millard Fillmore was not the Republican candidate in 1856, that was John C. Frémont. Millard Fillmore had been a Whig and became the "Know Nothing party candidate in 1856.His success and his local prominence brought him into politics and he served a term in the Maryland house of delegates between 1854 and 1856 and moved on to the state senate between 1856 and 1860. In 1856, having become involved with the American Party, he was a presidential elector, duly casting his ballot for Millard Fillmore. After the outbreak of the Civil War, he helped raise the First Maryland Volunteers (Eastern Shore) in August 1861 and took command as its colonel.
The Native American Party, renamed the American Party in 1855 and commonly known as the "Know Nothing movement, was an American nativist political party that operated nationally in the mid-1850s. It was primarily anti-Catholic, xenophobic and hostile to immigration, starting originally as a secret society.That does not sound like a Republican to me.
Did you not catch the part where I said "shortly after the 1856 election"?
First column, about halfway down - Link
It is cutting it pretty close to try to leave the impression Grant was not a Republican and that he never owned slaves.
That kind of smart-guy thinking led to D’Souza’s felony conviction.
About your post 53: I learned something. Thanks.
“Ulysses S. Grant” was a Republican who owned a slave.
The original statement was “In 1860, the year before the Civil War, no Republican owned a slave.”
Ulysses S. Grant essentially inherited a slave through marriage. Technically he bought him from his father-in-law in sometime between 1854 and 1859, and freed him in 1859.
But he did not own him in 1860 and he was NOT A REPUBLICAN when he owned a slave:
“Grant: a Biography.” Grant: a Biography, by William S. McFeely, Norton & Company, 1982, p. 64.
So, yeah, technically this is an example of a Republican (Grant) owning a slave... WHEN HE WAS A DEMOCRAT.
Now, D’Souza’s statement is just an anecdote. Good men owned slaves. The Bible allowed slavery in the Old and New Testaments. It is easy to get carried away with debates over something that occurred over a century ago. We could go back and forth endlessly. Abuses and injustices happened. Evangelical Christians were, for the most part, the driving force behind the abolition movement worldwide. Christians desired to spread liberty to all people. It really is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue. It was a Christian versus anti-Christian issue.
D’Souza is just helping to illustrate that the Democrat ideology is deeply flawed. Their attempts to smear Republicans, and especially conservatives, as vile, hateful, abusive people is the opposite of the truth. Sure, bad apples are in every group. Take Judas for example. But the accusations that Democrats and antifa types make against Trump, Republicans, and conservatives in general are all merely manipulative, mind-control garbage. They are lies and smears.
And I think that is the main takeaway from D’Souza’s commentary. Though the issue of slavery itself is very deep and can not be honestly dissected into simple soundbite answers, D’Souza does a good job of showing how the left is driven by a destructive ideology, and it misrepresents the beliefs, values, character, and actions of conservatives.
Blame the rich... not because they refuse to be generous... but because they are just plain rich....
Also, some people who had slaves treated them very easy, and others were very harsh. Still, the New Testament appears to want to do away with the idea of a “slave” who really didn’t want to be there, with the phrase “giving up threatening.” As illustrative as the adventures and misadventures of the Hebrews are, America wasn’t desired by God to be a second Israel. Mixing and matching the theologies of Old and New Testaments per our convenience just gives us a mischmosch that cannot consistently look forward in a gospel direction.
The very idea that we have to look for outliers in the GOP of Civil War vintage, itself says a lot.
John McCain is GOP and so is Donald Trump. But they don’t look very similar.
I read Booker T. Washington’s book “Up From Slavery”. It’s free on Kindle.
He was a genius. Born into slavery and then worked his way up, for those who don’t know about him.
An actual slave; he puts today’s grievance-mongers to utter shame.
Should be required reading for ridiculous snowflakes.
“So, yeah, technically this is an example of a Republican (Grant) owning a slave... WHEN HE WAS A DEMOCRAT.”
Just for the tally book, when did Grant start voting for Republicans, and when was his voter registration changed to Republican.
I understand all too well that Democrats have successfully played the race card against Republicans and that D’Souza wants to play it right back. And he has come up with a narrative that he thinks will prompt certain groups, that today don't often vote Republican, to flock to the polls to vote Republican.
Just be careful playing the race card - unless you are prepared to tear down the monuments to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason. And General Grant. And Moses.
Neither John McCain or Donald Trump promote themselves as white supremacists. Abraham Lincoln, father of the Republican Party, did.
That's one reason why D’Souza, and the rest of us, need to be careful in tossing the race card into play.
A better message for Republicans to carry, it seems to me, would be: all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And add, “Join us now in making things better.”
This might actually resonate with a large number of additional black and white voters. And it would not require rejecting the teachings of Moses, Paul, or Jesus.
Today’s democrats still support slavery. When supportive excuses flow, one of the most popular is how illegals are the only ones willing to work for peanuts, as no self-respecting American would be work so hard for so little pay. It’s why I adopted my current tag line.
Watch the video, Mr. D’Souza deals with that - Grant’s wife inherited a slave, but he was a Democrat at the time.
You do realize that many, if not most, in Republican leadership, support lots of immigration and access to low-wage labor? “Work for peanuts” as you say.
Just be careful how you play the race card.
“I’ll have those n****** voting Democrat for a hundred years.” Lyndon B. Johnson.
L
Mr. Grant's wife had numerous slaves - it was Mr. Grant that was said to own just one slave.
And the only reason Mr. Grant married into the slave business at all was because he determined it was in his best self-interest.
Ivory soap was marketed as 99 and 44/100 percent pure. D’Souza takes marketing to the next logical step: 100 percent of Republicans were 100 percent pure on slavery 100 percent of the time. “Buy new and improved Republican with confidence!”
But what will happen if potential customers find out the father of the Republican party was an ardent champion of white supremacy?
That is why I recommend being careful how you play the race card.
Mrs. Grant owned no slaves. Her father owned them and she had use of them.
And the only reason Mr. Grant married into the slave business at all was because he determined it was in his best self-interest.
That is about the dumbest claim I've ever heard.
But what will happen if potential customers find out the father of the Republican party was an ardent champion of white supremacy?
If you wish to measure people of the 19th century by 21st century standards then so be it. But it's idiotic.
The Wikipedia entry about Mrs. Grant reads: “According to Julia, “Eliza, Dan, Jule, and John belonged to me up to the time of President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation.”"
But Mrs. Grant's claims of ownership are disputed by “some historians” who figure that in light of post-post-modern sensibilities it would be better if she didn't own slaves for the sake of her, and General Grant's, reputations.
Otherwise, down come their monuments.
“If you wish to measure people of the 19th century by 21st century standards then so be it. But it’s idiotic.”
Right. And that is what D’Souza does: measure people of the 19th century by 21st century standards.
You may have missed it but I have cautioned people about this very thing in my posts, especially ham-fisted attempts to play the race card.
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.