Radical Republicans post-Civil War, Reconstruction period, were the SJWs of the 19th century. The 15th amendment was purely a punitive political measure, which Radical Republicans cared for only for the sake of votes and to rush the country into a retarded egalitarian utopianism. Lincoln's view of the country was better and more moderate than the SJW Republicans. Once blacks were given the vote, desegregation was inevitable. Lincoln was dead before the 15th amendment had one drop of ink.
—
'Conservative' Republicans only wanted to pass the 13th and 14th amendments. Radical Republicans demanded the 15th. Today's so-called 'Conservatives' are just economically and religiously so. There is no politically-so Conservative party today. Conservative Republicans today conserve what was radical and not-Conservative of the past.
—
Most Northerners, the constituents of Radical Republicans, agreed that the military and African Americans should not hold political sway in the South during Reconstruction. Radical Republicans decided, despite their constituents, to force the ratification of the 15th amendment under military threat.
Johnson and Lincoln attempted to unite the post-war nation. Representatives of the Republican states wanted to destroy the South, and inadvertently destroyed themselves by imposing the 15th amendment which ignored all the wisdom of America's forefathers and Lincoln.
books.google.com
—
Only the 13th and 14th amendment were agreeable to the Northern Unionist public - and it was the platform by which Lincoln ran. The 15th amendment was, by its effects, disagreeable to the majority of the Union (and one could argue, to Lincoln; and definitely Johnson) - but incumbent Senators, probably wanting to appear 'tough', pushed further than even the opinion of their constituents could justify by passing the 15th amendment. The racial nihilism of that amendment, passed by Radical Republicans, became the fertile ground by which post-WW2 desegregation and Communist SJWism could take hold.
—
Radical Republicans were motivated by naive ideas of equality, but not Communism. Post-WW2 is when America, by anti-thesisizing itself to NSDAP Germany, finally committed itself to Communism, Cultural Marxism, by negation ideologically.
How Republicans Destroyed America: The Republic
The modern cuckservative Zionist says a war was fought over whether or not the negro was granted the ability for citizenship in the Declaration of Independence, here are the arguments:
1) Negroes were citizens at the time of the Declaration of Independence's signing, making them constituents and 'a part' of the signage of the document by their representatives.
2) The policy of expansion Westward in the US was that of not codifying slavery in States' new constitutions.
3) Whites were not all placed on an equality with one or another. (In reference to: "Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits that the language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another.")
4) The assertion that “all men are created equal” was of no practical use in effecting Americans' separation from Great Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration, nor for that, but for future use.
5) If the Declaration of Independence was merely for justifying Americans before the world, "then it is useless and left to rot for what was already achieved 80 years ago."
6) (In response to the Founding Fathers "were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal to British subjects born and residing in Great Britain!”) "Why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain and America are not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish and Scotch, along with white Americans, were included to be sure, but the French, Germans and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the Judge’s inferior races. …"
7) "… I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the condition of British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gave no promise that having kicked off the King and Lords of Great Britain, we should not at once be saddled with a King and Lords of our own."
8) (Note: usually not made by anti-whites, but I found it) Citizenship was granted in 1816 to Cherokees - there is no presumed racial consideration.
9) George Washington, other prominent figures, were not against racial Native American citizenship - only against multi-culturalism.
Response to 1: Two can play at this game; those negroes were signing on a document signed by representatives of states which forbid their vote.
Response to 2: This is possibly projection of anti-slave or pro-negro intent where there actually is none. Many questions about this, and what the argument is more precisely. For example, was the new constitutions all drafted expediently and with the same cultural assumptions of the political/social inequality of races, including citizenship?
Response to 3: This argument isn't very clear. Does it mean that there were white slaves and they were not at once set equal with non-slave whites? Slavery was an institution of credit - one provided labor to pay off debts. Slaves bought as slaves for slavery were ownership deals, not credit. The freeing of whites from that bondage under the idea of free white persons interpretation does not grant non-whites the same. Here Northern anti-slavery states may be taking advantage of the Southern states good will to end white slavery, with the understanding it was only for whites, but then pretending the interpretation was not precedent setting for the arguments of white-intended meaning behind "men".
Racial character to lifelong servitude in early America (the 'whites were slaves too' argument from cuckservatives, and fucking Abraham Lincoln, are/were retarded):
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Whites were indentured - Africans were owned (for life) slaves. Africans were cheaper servants/slaves.
Being 'free' was not = being a citizen or having the vote. ("In the 1820s, New York State enlarged its suffrage franchise to white men by dropping the property qualification, but maintained it for free blacks.")
Response to 4: It was useful in effecting Americans' separation, as it was egg in the face of the idea of monarchs and kings - that free men have some degree of divine equality with Kings abroad.
Response to 5: Not an argument I'd make. No salience.
Response to 6 & 7: These are likely strawmans of the argument. It is not saying equitably servile, but equitable even with the kings and monarchs of those countries, to the degree the Declaration of Independence states.
Response to 8: This is, at most, a state which decided for itself how to handle different races.
Response to 9: Being against the erosion of one's culture is a very important message today, in the face of 'multi-culturalism'. That said, not being against a state's ability to grant citizenship is not the same as advocating a universal right to vote nor being against a state saying negroes cannot vote.
Addendum: Consider the naturalization act of 1790. It allowed the immigration of whites but not non-whites. Today, it's considered an act of 'population boosting' and demographic change 'for future composition', to dictate racial policy on immigration. It is substantially a statement that the future of America was to be dominated by whites unquestioningly, with exceptional cases on a per-state basis; and only in the interests of basic liberties nationwide, not the ability to vote and etc. (as reserved for the States).
A whole war was had over the question of how to approach the problem of the 'slights of dignity' against negroes. There was no Republican party position at the time, but there was popular opinion, that negroes should be kept separate even after the war. Eventually, the Congress passed an extreme amendment (the 15th) that not even Lincoln advocated. In fact, it looks like if it was passed, it meant something else entirely than "Every negro should be allowed to vote." Instead it was saying that State produced rights, enumerated to negroes by states, would not be infringed by the Federal or State government. This is something entirely different from "Everyone gets to vote." It seems a direct respond to the Dredd Scott ruling and the problem therein - which it denied States even the _right to choose_ that non-whites were or were not citizens.
At the very least, the Civil War - or Lincoln's platform - was presented neutral on the question of segregation as dictated by States individually. Dismantling slavery is not the same as integration - and appropriately, states quickly set into motion the segregation of races. There was not the manifested 'political will' that Lincoln hoped for to export Africans/Negroes to Africa. The expense was too great, as he predicted, and greed of the upper class whites took precedent over the future of the country. The upper class, largely separated from the ill effects of diversity due to wealth, advocated racial integration as an alternative to having to pony up the cash to create lasting solutions to the racial problems. Lincoln complained that Mammon was driving the continuance of slavery, and not love - but Mammon today is what's driving the total displacement and destruction of whites.
Equality of opportunity (for the basics of liberties) became the new attack, which led to the slow regression to despotic legislation of 'equality of outcome'.
The war was over state's rights, specifically to do with cases like Dredd Scott where states were forbade a right they were previously granted: the granting of citizenship to non-whites. It was not a war to force giving the vote to Negroes, or integration. Instead, it was one to protect the 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' of the negro. Lincoln, and likely his constituents, imagined this to mean something a lot more limited than equal opportunity. States outlawing miscegenation was considered compatible with the imagination of Lincoln's America. Discrimination by race by the states was their prerogative. This war was over the perceived impositions against States rights by Northern and Southern states. Southern states wanted to preserve slavery as their right to legalize or outlaw and to delegate rights OF non-whites, where Northern states wanted to preserve their right to outlaw and not protect slavery - and to delegate rights TO non-whites.
Lincoln, on the citizenship of the negro:
"Now, my opinion is, that the different States have the power to make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States, if they choose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. If the State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exercise of it "
Lincoln, on States' Rights over the negro:
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. . . .
But as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give the most solemn pledge that I will, to the very last, stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legislature, — not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself . . ."
Lincoln on Dred Scott, forbidding negro citizenship:
"In those days, Legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for State Constitutions to withhold that power from the Legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man’s bondage to new countries was prohibited; but now, Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the Supreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days, our Declaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed, and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. Mammon is after him; ambition follows, and philosophy follows, and the Theology of the day is fast joining the cry. They have him in his prison house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. "
Lincoln, on opinion of racial discrimination:
"There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races;"
Lincoln on "All men are created equal":
"He [Douglas] finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white; and forth-with he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes! He will have it that they cannot be consistent else. Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."
Lincoln on intermarriage:
"But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once-a thousand times agreed. [Slavery causes more intermarriage, not less.]"
Lincoln on separation:
"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform-opposition to the spread of slavery-is most favorable to that separation.
Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anything directly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor or retard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but “when there is a will there is a way;” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be"
(1): archive.org
(2): teachingamericanhistory.org
It is sad, however noble the idea of freeing blacks and then working to remove them was by Lincoln, that the war would result in the death of the Republic anyway because of vindictive Radicals that wanted Southern blood. The South was content with seceding and was the non-Radical defenders of their Constitutions. The conflict had valid arguments on both side legally, about their States' rights.
Radical Republicans killed America not even a decade after Lincoln supposedly saved it.
—
Jews/Judaism has merely attached itself to this weakness in the American body - as all parasites do; numbing the means by which they exploit the host. Racial nihilism opened a gaping wound in the Republic for bad actors to flood in and destroy it. Some cited the heckling of foreign powers as the reason for relenting to the worst angels of the Anglo-Saxon's sense of Justice. What should have been a conversation became one side enacting despotic balms on their own embarrassment - precisely to the point that it ignored the more sound, and less invested, dispositions of their constituents.
The Union's (representatives') post-war pompousness was an anachronistic expression of their British past. The good of the country is what is good for the future progeny of it - and not their "good names" or vanity by radically, and myopically, introducing a hyper-partisan amendment under the guise of virtue - and threat of destruction (by requiring its ratification).
—
A Democrat killed Lincoln, the man. Republicans killed Lincoln, the idea.
t-trust the plan…
good post OP
If this is some sneaky, kikey trick to try and get us to vote Democrap in 2020 Shitlary, you can think again. You might try Zig Forums.
No.
The Republican party is the exact same party it was when it was founded. They just have two things going for them:
Somewhat, somewhat not - wisdom gripped true Conservative Republicans and prevented them from agreeing with the passage of the 15th amendment. Flared up debates about it resulted in Radical Republicans destroying the Republic, despite their constituents disagreeing with its effects (military and Negroes having political sway in the South).
The 14th amendment is used to justify way too many things today, in the name of ideology and not wisdom - and it is what made possible a grave repeat of the Reconstruction in Little Rock, AK.
The intention of the 14th amendment was narrow but it has been interpreted as broad because of the precedent set by the 15th. An all-white Primary would otherwise be uncontroversial.
cool slide thread schlomo
What influence did Jews have on the debate over the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, and the Civil War? Except foreign Jews, that wrote in their papers about the 'travesty' of American Negro treatment (as an attempt to destroy the US).
Number one, trying to link any of this shit to Trump with a poorly-drawn kindergartner's scrawled crayola-crayon pic, reveals what a leftard you are.
Number two, what is destroying America is the libtard's non-white pets flooding the country through illegal and legal migration, started by Ted Kennedy…well-known soused drunk, killer, and leftard…with his immigration "reform" of 1965.
Trump has mentioned repealing it, but guess who would fight it just like they're fighting the wall?
Leftarded, pig-fucking, homosexual-pole-smoking, faggot libtards.
sage.
I'll speak to one thing: it's my opinion that Jews, as merchants, are responsible for Capitalism and the idea of 'private property' - because then they could collectivize the cost of enforcement against vagabonds and theft when they were minorities in countries and subject to the whims of natural selection.
When private property mixed with slavery, it begot the conditions for which chattel slavery was a thing. (That, except in non-European countries, generally excluded whites. And apparently the first recorded incident of chattel slavery in America was that of a Negro to another Negro.)
? (Way to shill yourself.) (Trump is not mentioned anywhere in the post.)
This post/thread was aimed at Zionist cuckservatives that advocate Lincoln's idea that the Declaration of Independence meant 'all men' as in 'non-whites too' - and additionally the opinions that this included the right to vote or infringe on a person's willing association or disassociation for 'racial-social justice'; or infringement on the States' rights to racially deny the franchise. Lincoln was explicitly against franchising blacks (in Illinois) and 'thousands times over' against miscegenation and intermarriage.
No, you liberal jew fucks did that.
The 15th Amendment disarmed the Republic - Jews just stuck the knife in.
Trump is probably the most extreme Fusionist to hold office since literal niggers under Reconstruction.
Why are we all of the sudden talking about Donald Trump? Trump is not a Republican. Shut the fuck up
Trump's combination of federal overreach of a leviathan state, negrophilia, and devotion to entrenched capital is quintessentially republican. His political program of White oppression and subjugation, along with spoils and sinecure laid out to niggers [he even dabbles in alluding to the problematic nature of Catholics disinterested in hebraic empire, with Mexicans replacing the Irish], is incredibly relevant to this thread – which is about the ideological foundations of the Republican party.
ok, so how about he fucking deports the 11 (lel) million illegals that he has mentioned that he will NOT deport? How about he stops LEGALLY importing millions more? Nah? He doesn't fucking care about our demographics retard, just our votes and memes
The 15th amendment destroyed the 10th.
are you kidding? theres a special counsel putting all his associates in PRISON. thats the leviathan if anything you turd-nigger
So this is also how recently the states lost their right to deny marriage licenses to homosexual couples as well. The 15th amendment takes away power of the states by allowing the fed to overrule any law they don't want anytime. I wonder if this applies to assault weapon hand as well. If that's the case then what federal law will congress intact to disarm the democracy (we're no longer a republic) next?
They probably cited the 14th amendment. Which probably would be reigned in by the 10th if the 15th hadn't already dismantled the 10th's meaning with the 15th. The 15th is the basis for meddling with the State's ability to represent what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness meant to its own people. The banning of fag marriage was its own sort of autonomous pursuit of happiness. The 15th specifically started the equalizing treatment of involuntary differences which were previously OK to discriminate on, even with the 14th, which only meant to stop chattel slavery and indentured servitude - but the language was made too broad. If sole characteristic were voluntary, then marriage became a religious speech issue. The Federal government started growing out of control after the Civil War to try and enforce the blinding ideology of racial nihilism when everyone could easily see it. To this day Northerners will call Southerners ignorant for having full contact with and negative opinions on diversity, but Northerners somehow know better.
Most of what you says is true except "Lincoln's view of the country was better and more moderate than the SJW Republicans." Lincoln was the king SJW of his time, his entire praxis was his feelings about niggers, and he said one or two things to fool you so that he could get elected. Some of the things he said about niggers prior to running for president is shocking how much of a gigantic cuck he was. There's a reason as soon as he won the war, his first move wasn't to ship the nigger back (as lied about during the election) but immediately moved to give them voting rights, which caused his assassins to take matters into their own hands (unfortunately failing in the end to prevent niggers from getting the vote.)
Also Republicans recruited jewish barons big time in the 1870s and introduced the (((industrial revoluation))) and (((banker economy))) we now have. Ulysses S. Grant, after previous being anti jew, courted jews through his entire presidency. Of course Hamilton was the first to really move the jews into power in the US, but the 19th century republicans really ramped it up.
no you dumb fuck
it means don't vote at all because participating in a system where both sides are united in working against you is accepting your fate as a slave to the elite
So, what you're saying is to vote democrat. Got it.
Doublethink:
1) It is white supremacist to limit immigration to whites only.
2) America in 1790 wasn't white supremacist.
Let's examine the (probably only) objection:
"But, they were ignorant back then and we know better now. It wasn't a merely hateful discrimination back then."
Probably the only objection they'd have to the argument put forth. I have to wonder, when exactly did America suddenly realize it was 'white supremacist'? Was it decided during the Civil War? It certainly seems like that's when the erosion of racialism started. The victory of the Union does not speak to their correctness, nor even in the minds of their constituents, to the annihilation of race. The discrimination of race is precisely spoken to by what was accepted as uncontroversial before by legislation passed with no controversy. If a war does not indicate controversy, and the 13th-15th amendments being passed only under the auspices of that war, then I do not know what does. Especially in regard to the 15th, the effects of which was passed with little-to-no constituent support. There is every indication the Americans of the 19th century cared about the imposition of slavery, not the imposition of racial segregation and discrimination.
Yet, somehow today, the cuckservative thinks that is 'more enlightened' - only ~40 years after racial integration was gravely enforced by Eisenhower in a manner harkening back to Reconstruction.
A man says society progresses with the newfound wisdom of the current day, but then says he cannot effect any change or possess any new wisdom himself.
Racial egalitarian America had its day; we see precisely the result - an attack not only on the race which limited itself, but an attack on the idea of country or nation altogether.
What matters is that the Union public only bought it (the platform) under the promise of racial separatism.
"Don't call me a 'Nazi,' my wife's son would get mad at me."
Vote for whoever the fuck you want, MAGAnigger. Your country will be dead in 20 years.
Found the crypto-leftoid