Peace Democrats

Peace Democrats

The Democrats were a badly divided political party in the late 1850s, having fallen prey to sectional bickering. They were unable to unify in 1860, a shortcoming that assured the election of Abraham Lincoln. During the course of the Civil War, the Democratic Party in the North comprised two factions:

  1. War Democrats. This faction was firmly supportive of military efforts to maintain the Union, but was loudly critical of Lincoln’s conduct of the war. This criticism grew with the lengthening list of Union military losses and with the president’s heavy-handed actions, such as the suspension of habeas corpus. The War Democrats represented the vast majority of Northern party members.
  2. Peace Democrats. Many Democrats within this group hoped that the Union could be salvaged, but felt that military means were not justified. This faction asserted the following:
    • The North was responsible for pushing the South into secession
    • The Republicans were committed to establishing racial equality, a prospect opposed by many working class immigrants who wanted to protect their low-paying jobs and by racists
    • Lincoln had become a tyrant and was bent upon destroying civil liberties
    • The war was a national tragedy and must be ended, even if that meant granting independence to the Confederacy.
    Support for the Peace Democrats was strongest in the Midwest, especially in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Residents of these areas held a deep distrust of the East, the seat of Republican power, and kept strong commercial and sentimental ties to the South.The name “Copperhead” was applied to this group by a disapproving Republican press, which likened the Democrats’ actions to those of the venomous snake. The Peace Democrats tried to turn the name to their advantage by sporting on their lapels copper pennies bearing the head of the goddess Liberty.Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio was the most prominent spokesman for the faction. However, in 1863, he was tried by a military tribunal and banished to the Confederacy for expressing Southern sympathies. Another prominent Peace Democrat was Fernando Wood, a former mayor of New York City who entered Congress in 1863.In 1864, the Peace Democrats controlled the Democratic Convention. Vallandigham, who had worked his way back into the country, managed to engineer a plank for the party platform that labeled the war a failure and called for a negotiated peace. That position was promptly rejected by the Democratic nominee, George B. McClellan.The fall of Atlanta in September reversed the course of the war, assured the reelection of Lincoln and took the wind out of the Peace Democrats' sails.In the post-war North, many voters held the Democratic Party responsible for the Copperheads' actions, assigning them blame for lengthening the conflict. The Democrats were not able to escape voter disapproval until well into the 1870s. It was not until 1884 that a Democrat was elected to the presidency.

Antiwar Movements in the U.S.

Vietnam War protesters carrying antiwar signs march in San Francisco from Market Street to Golden Gate Park's Kezar Stadium for a rally called Spring Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam

Related

Oct. 7 marks the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan — a war that has slouched from campaign to crusade to near quagmire as the U.S. has rethought and redefined its strategy in the war on terrorism. According to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53% of Americans now say things are going badly for the U.S. in Afghanistan. And few are saying that as vehemently as those who have picked the anniversary as their day to demonstrate. Student organizations on 25 college campuses, along with members of antiwar groups like the coalition Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) and Veterans for Peace are holding rallies on Oct. 7 others have already descended on Washington. On Oct. 5, 61 people were arrested in a demonstration in the capital, including Cindy Sheehan, the onetime face of the Iraq antiwar movement, who chained herself to the fence of the White House. (See pictures commemorating the 50th anniversary of the peace symbol.)

Demonstrations such as these against the nation's military adventures have cropped up at nearly every important conflict in U.S. history. The Peace Democrats of the 1860s became pejoratively known as Copperheads — after a Southeastern snake that attacks without warning — for their opposition to the Civil War. Peace Democrats were mainly recent settlers of the Midwest (Ohio, Indiana and Illinois) with Southern roots and an interest in maintaining the Union, and they made common cause with Northern groups who opposed emancipation and the draft. The antidraft riots of 1863 — dramatized in the 2002 Martin Scorsese film Gangs of New York — were sparked by opposition to the government's recently passed Conscription Act and, in part, by fears among Irish immigrants that freed slaves would come North and take away jobs.

Conscription played a recurring role in protests for the next century. At the start of World War I, Socialists and isolationists opposed the draft on the grounds of civil liberties: Charles Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, was convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for distributing leaflets that urged men to resist the draft. In the famous case Schenck v. the United States, Schenck argued (unsuccessfully) that conscription was the equivalent of "involuntary servitude" and thus prohibited by the 13th Amendment.


Democratic peace

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Democratic peace, the proposition that democratic states never (or almost never) wage war on one another.

The concept of democratic peace must be distinguished from the claim that democracies are in general more peaceful than nondemocratic countries. Whereas the latter claim is controversial, the claim that democratic states do not fight each other is widely regarded as true by scholars and practitioners of international relations. Proponents of the democratic peace hark back to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and, more recently, to U.S. Pres. Woodrow Wilson, who declared in his 1917 war message to Congress that the United States aimed to make the world “safe for democracy.”

In Project for a Perpetual Peace (1795), Kant envisioned the establishment of a zone of peace among states constituted as republics. Although he explicitly equated democracy with despotism, contemporary scholars claim that Kant’s definition of republicanism, which emphasizes the representative nature of republican government, corresponds to our current understanding of liberal democracy. Thus, the terms democratic peace (or liberal peace) and Kantian peace are today often used interchangeably.

Project for a Perpetual Peace received little notice from students of international relations until, in a series of influential articles published in the mid-1980s, the American international-relations scholar Michael Doyle called attention to Kant’s work and argued that the zone of peace envisioned by Kant has gradually become reality. Subsequently, and especially after the end of the Cold War, the democratic peace became one of the most-popular subjects of research in international relations. Scores of studies were devoted to it, many of which employed quantitative methods to demonstrate that the democratic peace is a historical fact. What that research has shown is not that wars between nondemocracies, or between democracies and nondemocracies, have been frequent instead, it has demonstrated that, although interstate war is a rare event in general, wars between democracies have been even rarer.

Although a number of critics have questioned the veracity of the proposition, the claim that democracies do not fight each other continues to be widely accepted in the international relations discipline. There is less agreement, however, on why the democratic peace exists. Two major competing (if not mutually exclusive) explanations have been elaborated. While some argue that democracies are more peaceful to one another because of a shared culture, others consider the main factor to be structural (or institutional). Proponents of the first view argue that the political culture of democratic societies is pervaded by the norm that disputes are to be settled by peaceful means. Democratic citizenries, the argument goes, apply that norm to their relations with other democratic societies hence, when two democracies are locked in a dispute, their leaders expect each other to shun violent means of resolving the dispute. Proponents of the second explanation argue that the political institutions in democracies matter more than the norms harboured by their citizens. The separation of powers and the checks and balances characteristic of democratic political systems constrain the ability of elected leaders to move their countries rashly toward war. Thus, when a conflict arises between two democratic countries, their leaders need not fear a surprise attack the inherently slow process of national-security decision making on both sides allows ample time for diplomats to resolve the conflict peacefully.


Democracies and War in the 1900s

Perhaps the strongest evidence supporting the Democratic Peace Theory is the fact that there were no wars between democracies during the 20th century.

As the century began, the recently ended Spanish-American War had seen the United States defeat the monarchy of Spain in a struggle for control of the Spanish colony of Cuba.

In World War I, the U.S. allied with the democratic European empires to defeat the authoritarian and fascist empires of Germany, Austro-Hungary, Turkey, and their allies. This led to World War II and eventually the Cold War of the 1970s, during which the U.S. led a coalition of democratic nations in resisting the spread of authoritarian Soviet communism.

Most recently, in the Gulf War (1990-91), the Iraq War (2003-2011), and the ongoing war in Afghanistan, the United States, along with various democratic nations fought to counter international terrorism by radical jihadist factions of authoritarian Islamist governments. Indeed, after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, the George W. Bush administration based its use military force to topple Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq on the belief that it would bring democracy—thus peace—to the Middle East.


President Kennedy establishes the Peace Corps

On March 1, 1961, President John F. Kennedy issues Executive Order #10924, establishing the Peace Corps as a new agency within the Department of State. The same day, he sent a message to Congress asking for permanent funding for the agency, which would send trained American men and women to foreign nations to assist in development efforts. The Peace Corps captured the imagination of the U.S. public, and during the week after its creation thousands of letters poured into Washington from young Americans hoping to volunteer.

The immediate precursor of the Peace Corps—the Point Four Youth Corps—was proposed by Representative Henry Reuss of Wisconsin in the late 1950s. Senator Kennedy learned of the Reuss proposal during his 1960 presidential campaign and, sensing growing public enthusiasm for the idea, decided to add it to his platform. In early October 1960, he sent a message to the Young Democrats that called for the establishment of a “Youth Peace Corps,” and on October 14 he first publicly spoke of the Peace Corps idea at an early morning speech at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. The night before, he had engaged Vice President Richard Nixon in the third presidential debate and was surprised to find an estimated 10,000 students waiting up to hear him speak when he arrived at the university at 2 a.m. The assembled students heard the future president issue a challenge: How many of them, he asked, would be willing to serve their country and the cause of freedom by living and working in the developing world for years at a time?

The Peace Corps proposal gained momentum in the final days of Kennedy’s campaign, and on November 8 he was narrowly elected the 35th president of the United States. On January 20, 1961, in his famous inaugural address, he promised aid to the poor of the world. “To those peoples in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery,” he said, “we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right.” He also appealed to Americans to 𠇊sk not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

After March 1, thousands of young Americans answered this call to duty by volunteering for the Peace Corps. The agency, which was headed by Kennedy’s brother-in-law, R. Sargent Shriver, eventually chose some 750 volunteers to serve in 13 nations in 1961. In August, Kennedy hosted a White House ceremony to honor the some of the first Peace Corps volunteers. The 51 Americans who later landed in Accra, Ghana, for two years of service immediately made a favorable impression on their hosts when they gathered on the airport tarmac to sing the Ghanaian national anthem in Twi, the local language.

On September 22, 1961, Kennedy signed congressional legislation creating a permanent Peace Corps that would “promote world peace and friendship” through three goals: (1) to help the peoples of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women (2) to help promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served and (3) to help promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans.

By the end of 1963, 7,000 volunteers were in the field, serving in 44 countries. In 1966, Peace Corps enrollment peaked, with more than 15,000 volunteers in 52 countries. Budget cuts later reduced the number of Peace Corps volunteers, but today more than 7,000 Peace Corps volunteers are serving in over 60 countries. Since 1961, more than 240,000 Americans have joined the Peace Corps, serving in 142 nations.


False advertising: How the Democrats attempt to rewrite history

Since President Donald Trump Donald Trump'QAnon shaman' set to take competency exam in Colorado federal prison Trump hits Biden, Democrats in post-presidential return to rally stage Watchdog found EPA employees kept on payroll by Trump appointees after they were fired: report MORE emerged on the political scene, Democrats have relentlessly challenged the truthfulness of his statements.

Ridiculing Trump’s so-called “alternative facts,” the Democrats have some “alternative facts” of their own.

Take this statement from the “Our History” page of the DNC website : “For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights.”

Any student of history can immediately identify why this statement is not only misleading but in some respects an outright lie.

The Democrats of today may claim to champion these ideas, but this has certainly not been the case for “more than 200 years.”

Most significantly, the Democrats were hardly champions of civil rights. For much of its history, the party struggled with division over the question of minority rights. The issue of the expansion of slavery tore the Democrats apart before and after the Civil War .

It was actually the Republican Party that was founded on the idea that slavery should be abolished.

In 1864, the Republican Party platform stated , “Slavery is hostile to the principles of Republican Government. Justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic.”

Sorry, Tom Perez, it was your own party that started the Civil War because you supported the “civil rights” of slave owners.

Disagreement on civil rights issues within the Democratic Party continued long after the Civil War. Because of division within the party, the Democrats were only able to hold one presidency between 1896 and 1932. In 1948, the first time the Democrats officially adopted a pro-civil rights platform , Southern Democrats walked out of the Democratic National Convention in protest .

The divide remained throughout the 1950s and 60s, with southern Democrats attempting to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In fact , 80 percent of Republicans voted in favor of its final passage in contrast to less than 70 percent of democrats who supported it.

Does this sound like a party that has “led the fight for civil rights” for over 200 years?

The Democratic Party was also historically against women’s suffrage. The Republican Party supported women’s right to vote in its platform in 1854. However, due to the Democratic obstructionism, it was not until 1920 that woman was granted universal suffrage.

When the amendment came before congress , 82 percent of GOP members voted in favor of it, while only 59 percent of Democrats supported it.

Does that sound like the party that led the fight for women’s right for over 200 years?

The Democrats have a selective memory when it comes to their party’s history. This is not to say that the history of the Republican Party is without blemishes over the years, the GOP has no doubt struggled with its identity as a party as well. However, in light of their criticisms of Trump’s honesty, the Democrats’ rewriting of the past is blatantly hypocritical.

Consider Andrew Jackson, for example, the first president to identify as a Democrat. The party is quick to forget Jackson, after his brutal ousting of the Native Americans.

Or Woodrow Wilson: Democrats will glorify him as a champion of peace but will fail to mention that he cared little about civil rights and viewed segregation in federal agencies as a benefit to minorities.

Or John F. Kennedy: his civil rights advocacy is highlighted, but many Democrats ignore the depths of political calculus and extreme hesitancy with which JFK approached civil rights issues.

This tendency to overlook or rebrand certain prominent Democratic figures does not just apply to Democrats of the past but to party leaders of the present as well.

One reason that the country rejected Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonTrump hits Biden, Democrats in post-presidential return to rally stage Conan O'Brien ends late-night run after more than 4,000 episodes Communion vote puts spotlight on Hispanic Catholics MORE was because she tried to be all things to all people, and in the end, no one truly knew where she stood on the issues.

The Democrats claim to have a 200-year history of leading the fight for civil rights , healthcare, Social Security, worker’s rights, and women’s rights?

But history says otherwise.

Depending on which Democrat you look at, that number might not even be ten years.

If Democrats are going to attack Trump for lying and deceiving the American people, they should be careful of what they advertise themselves to be.

Christopher Reid is general practice attorney in Birmingham Alabama. He has worked for Republican leadership in the United State House of Representatives in Washington, DC, and was a health policy advisor to the Governor of Alabama. He currently Co-host’s a conservative radio show for yellowhammer news radio which is heard throughout the state of Alabama.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.


Where Does the Democratic Party Stand on War, Peace, and International Relations?

After nearly four years of the Trump administration, U.S. voters have a pretty good idea of the policies that the President and his Republican allies champion when it comes to America&rsquos dealings with other nations. These policies include massive increases in military spending, lengthy wars abroad, threats of nuclear war, withdrawal from climate and nuclear disarmament treaties, a crackdown on refugees, and abandonment of international institutions.

But what about the Democrats? Do they, as some have charged, simply mirror the Republicans when it comes to America&rsquos engagement with the world? The official Democratic Party platform, adopted this August at the Democratic national convention, provides a useful answer to this question.

The foreign affairs section of the platform opens with a sharp rebuttal to Trump&rsquos belligerent, nationalist approach. Challenging militarism, it pledges to &ldquouse force only when necessary, always as a last resort, and with the informed consent of the American people.&rdquo It also promises to draw upon international partnerships and institutions to &ldquomeet common challenges that no country can face on its own.&rdquo

The platform&rsquos discussion of U.S. military policy is particularly striking. &ldquoWe need to bring our forever wars to a responsible end,&rdquo the document states. &ldquoOur military engagements, which have spanned from West Africa to Southeast Asia, have cost more than $5 trillion and claimed more than half a million lives. Our war in Afghanistan is the longest war in American history.&rdquo Thus, &ldquoit&rsquos time to bring nearly two decades of unceasing conflict to an end.&rdquo

Accordingly, the platform calls for a peace settlement in Afghanistan, termination of U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen (a war that &ldquois responsible for the world&rsquos worst humanitarian crisis&rdquo), and for applying the lessons learned from these disastrous conflicts. This means, among other things, that &ldquowe will work with Congress to repeal decades-old authorizations for the use of military force and replace them with a narrow and specific framework that will ensure we can protect Americans from terrorist threats while ending the forever wars.&rdquo The platform adds: &ldquoRather than occupy countries and overthrow regimes to prevent terrorist attacks, Democrats will prioritize more effective and less costly diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement tools.&rdquo

In line with this new approach, the platform calls for cutting the Trump administration&rsquos bloated military budget&mdashwhat it calls, in typical Washington-speak, &ldquorestoring stability, predictability, and fiscal discipline in defense spending.&rdquo In justification, the platform notes that &ldquowe spend 13 times more on the military than we do on diplomacy. We spend five times more in Afghanistan each year than we do on global public health and preventing the next pandemic. We can maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less.&rdquo

The platform also pledges that Democrats will initiate other reforms in the U.S. military. These include efforts to halt &ldquothe Trump administration&rsquos politicization of the armed forces,&rdquo root out sexual assault within their ranks, and safeguard &ldquothe independence of the military justice system&mdashnot pardon war criminals.&rdquo

Promising to &ldquorevitalize American diplomacy,&rdquo the platform argues that, &ldquorather than militarize our foreign policy,&rdquo the Democrats would make diplomacy &ldquoour tool of first resort.&rdquo Under a Democratic administration, the U.S. government would rejoin the World Health Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the UN Population Fund and seek to modernize international institutions. Championing foreign assistance and development programs, the platform backs U.S. &ldquoinvestments in the prevention and alleviation of poverty, hunger, disease, and conflict,&rdquo and &ldquothe empowerment of vulnerable and marginalized populations.&rdquo It also promises that &ldquoDemocrats will lead international efforts to help developing countries withstand and recover from debt crises causes by the COVID-19 pandemic.&rdquo

Indeed, the Democratic platform sharply rejects the narrow nationalist approach of the Trump administration. It contains strong commitments to acting cooperatively with other nations to ensure global health (for example, by restoring the U.S. role as the leading funder and technical partner of the WHO), battle climate change (by rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and developing more ambitious global goals to reduce greenhouse gas pollution), utilize technology for the public good (by maintaining an open internet), and expand the admission of refugees. In yet another attempt to respect the rights of other nations, the platform promises to move the U.S. government&rsquos &ldquorelationships in the Middle East away from military intervention&rdquo and to end the cruel policies of the Trump administration toward Cuba and Venezuela.

In line with this decreased emphasis on military might and increased emphasis upon international cooperation, the platform states that Democrats support the &ldquoelimination&rdquo of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. They favor &ldquoreducing our overreliance and excessive expenditure on nuclear weapons&rdquo and declare that &ldquothe Trump administration&rsquos proposal to build new nuclear weapons is unnecessary, wasteful, and indefensible.&rdquo Furthermore, &ldquoDemocrats commit to strengthening&rdquo the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, &ldquomaintaining the moratorium on explosive nuclear weapons testing, pushing for the ratification of the UN Arms Trade Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and extending New START.&rdquo Moreover, they would &ldquowork with Russia&rdquo to &ldquonegotiate [nuclear] arms control agreements . . . and move the world back from the nuclear precipice.&rdquo

Admittedly, the 2020 Democratic platform also contains occasional flag-waving rhetoric and a number of positions that are bound to irk at least some critics of Trump&rsquos policies. Also, of course, a party platform is a statement of policy preferences&mdashnot a guarantee of their implementation.

Even so, when it comes to war, peace, and international relations, the Democratic Party has outlined a program significantly different from that of its Republican counterpart. In this November&rsquos elections, American voters will have a clear choice as to what kind of role they want their country to play in the world.


Peace and Freedom Party: History, Facts, and Beliefs

The Peace and Freedom Party. Sandwiched between bigwig political parties like the Republicans and the Democrats, this minor left-wing party strives to find a firm ground in the entangled world of politics driven with goals of equality, feminism, and democracy. This OpinionFront article traces the history, facts, and beliefs of the Peace and Freedom Party.

The Peace and Freedom Party. Sandwiched between bigwig political parties like the Republicans and the Democrats, this minor left-wing party strives to find a firm ground in the entangled world of politics driven with goals of equality, feminism, and democracy. This OpinionFront article traces the history, facts, and beliefs of the Peace and Freedom Party.

Comedian Roseanne Barr was the official Peace and Freedom Party candidate for the presidential elections of 2012.

This leftist Californian party is not in any way associated with the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom which is an anti-war organization, though it did originate from an anti-war demonstration. No one leader is credited as its founder, instead there were several individuals serving during its constituting stage from various walks of life. Farm workers, civil rights and anti-war activists formed this party due to the political frustrations belted out on the nation by the Democratic party.

After its inception, the party grew famous in the multi-cultural state of California and by the start of 1968 successfully achieved a ballot status in the state by registering over 105,000 voters under its distinctive political banner.

Brief History

The Peace and Freedom Party came into existence on 23rd June, 1967 due to the direct effects of the Vietnam War. Anti-war activists held a peaceful protest against the Lyndon Johnson administration for pushing America into the alleged war front.

On 23rd June, 1967, as President Johnson was delivering a speech at Century City in Los Angeles, thousands of white middle class men, women and children took to the streets protesting for an end to the Vietnam propaganda and calling the troops back home. The police charged at the crowd and started beating up the protesters creating pandemonium and chaos even as the media recorded the whole scene live. This incidence caused more mistrust among the people against the Democratic party.

The other catalyst proved to be unhappy farmers who wanted to form a union and stage a national boycott against the Democrats for their increase in taxes. Thus the farmers, the anti-war activists came together and formed their independent party to deal with economic, political, and social issues.

Party Beliefs

The party does not feature any official slogan, but its fundamental beliefs are broadly based on democracy, socialism, feminism, ecology, and racial equality. The party logo consists of a black circle comprising a white dove with ‘Peace and Freedom Party’ written in green text, and two broken off, red metal shackles on the left and right.

Socialism
A party that mainly keeps the working class under its agenda advocates agricultural & industrial production for human needs, unification of the labor, abolition of imperial capitalism, generating better working conditions, parental leaves for child care, defending of workers’ rights, abolition of overtime with 30-hour work and 40-hour pay, promotion of safety laws, and a universal basic income with guaranteed social benefits.

Upholds Peace and International Justice
They are committed to working towards peace between nations with global disarmament, abolish destabilizing of foreign governments, get rid of all government secret agencies like the CIA, NSA, AID, and other agencies, abolish arms deal and trading, reallocation of military funds for social benefit, and removal of space weapons and drones that invade people’s privacy.

Equal Rights and Liberties
The party believes in equal working opportunities and respectful treatment of workers by their employers as well as the government.

Women’s Rights
Their beliefs constitute ending oppressive sex roles in the society, promoting equal rights to raising a child, providing high quality child-care, free abortion on demand, preventing forced abortions, securing prenatal care, and ending social and domestic violence against women.

Racism and National Oppression
The party proposes to put an end to all forms of racism and social discrimination, and legally prosecute law and prison authorities who mistreat and murder prison inmates.

Establish Language Rights
They encourage co-equal status for Spanish language and culture in the state of California and abolish all English-only laws.

Protection of Undocumented Workers
They aim to establish full political, economic, and social rights to the immigrant workers, opening up of the borders, and end deportation of illegal immigrants.

Defends the Native Americans
The party strives to work for the acknowledgement of indigenous tribes, honor their hunting, fishing, and natural resources, abolish the FBI harassment of these tribes, and stop the desecration of their sacred burial grounds.

Acknowledges Varied Sexual Orientations
The party promotes equal rights for every individual despite their personal sexual orientation, rights to gay marriage, healthy sex education at schools, and insures equal child custody, adoption, visitation privileges, and foster parenthood rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Equality for People With Disabilities
The party encourages equal rights for people with disabilities to receive education, housing, health care, recreation, and transportation rights.

Propagation of a Healthy Ecosystem
They believe in creation of open public spaces, regulate pesticides, herbicides, industrial wastes and genetically modified foods to defend human food, air and water, and species habitat. They aim to end environment racism, protect species and bio-diversity.

Efficient Agricultural System
The party believes in developing an agricultural system that assures sufficient food and farm products to meet all human needs, end animal husbandry, end the use of genetically engineered organisms in food production, ban terminator seeds and chemically induced agricultural products.

Better Education
The PFP believes in promoting multi-lingual and multi-cultural education, cancellation of student debt, federal funding for special education, free education till graduation level, and snips on public library services.

Promotes Housing and Rent Control
Their ideologies include rent and eviction laws to be re-evaluated and re-updated, introduce collective bargaining for tenants, promote affordable homes for all, and emphasize public financing for housing the homeless.

Equal Voting and Election Rights
The party ascertains direct voting facility to the public, voting rights to non-residents especially in school and local elections, voting rights for people of color, homeless, and non-English speakers, and free access to media for all political candidates.

Better Health Care
PFP believes in promoting free and high-quality health care for all, price control on drugs and medical installations, more funding on research of diseases caused by man-made substances, and more substance abuse treatment, prevention of epidemic diseases, and free immunization.

Reduction of Tax Burden
PFP advocates the abolition of Proposition 13, removal of property taxes on modest homes, increase in registration fees on luxury vehicles, high tax on unearned income, restoration of renters tax credit, and tax business activities of churches on the same basis as other organizations.

Famous Candidates

Political activist and beatnik poet John Haag was one of the prominent leaders. He ran for the public offices of California lieutenant governor in 1970 and California state controller in 1986. Eldridge Cleaver ran for presidential elections and Douglas Fitzgerald Dowd for vice presidential elections on its ticket for the 1968 election.

Other presidential candidates who stood for elections include activist and pediatrician Benjamin Spock in 1972, feminist activist Sonia Johnson in 1984, and Native American activist Leonard Peltier in 2004. Vice-presidential candidates included Benjamin Spock in 1976, Matinecoc Nation Native American activist Asiba Tupahache in 1992, and lawyer and politician Matthew Edward Gonzalez in 2008. California candidates for governor have included Chicana feminist and activist Elizabeth Martínez, Chicana activist Maria Elizabeth Muñoz in 1986, and again in 1990, and activist Janice Jordan in 2006.

More recently comedian Roseanne Barr contested the 2012 presidential elections.

Pros & Cons

Pros:
1. An efficient platform for Native American rights, equal social, sex, and women rights, better health and education goals, tax cuts, labor benefits, and agricultural production.

2. The party completely opposes all kinds of war and harbingers peace.

Cons:
Extremely active, but only in California other states have yet to witness its beneficial agenda.

Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) relentlessly make their presence felt in the nation’s political scene by nominating presidential, congressional, and senate candidates. The party holds regular demonstrations against the wealthy society and corporate houses who hoard public wealth for their benefits. It also carries out protests against the biased mandate of the media and cash-rich political parties who deny other candidates a ballot chance to present their views. With all these efforts, it will soon gain enough attention from the public to establish their party goals.


Democratic peace theory and historical examples.

The subject of democratic peace theory (the idea that democratic states don't fight each other) has come up on here a few times. Aside from the fact that there are plenty of historical exceptions to this rule (Philippine-American war, Irish war of Independence etc) one of my hunches is that democracies havent fought it each other simply due to the fact that they have little to fight about anyway. Democratic peace theorists on the other hand would explain this using regime type.

For example Joanne Gowa (playing devils advocate) sums up this argument by saying
“The checks and balances that define a democracy
constrain the autonomy of its leader. These constraints apply a fortiori to decisions
involving force, delaying the dispatch of troops abroad even in international crises. As
such, they create a window of opportunity that diplomats can exploit to settle conflicts of
interests without recourse to arms.”*

However if this was the case you would think that there was some example of two democracies having some dispute that they would have fought over were it not for democratic constraints, so presumably there would be some case where two democracies came to the brink of war and then stopped. Does such an example exist?
*http://web.mit.edu/polisci/research/wip/dempeace_final.pdf p5

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

I am always wary of broad generalizations and absolutes in politics.

For instance, simply defining what is a "Democratic nation" is difficult. Some nations have the FORMS of democracy without the substance. Then there's the question of "pure democracy" vs "representative democracy", and the question of who gets to vote or hold office, and the question of civil rights and so forth.

Usually we end up just assuming that we're talking about the sort of governments that currently exist in the USA, Britain, Canada, and most of Western Europe. Well there's actually a LOT of variation just in that group, but we'll set that aside for now and accept the popular assumption for the sake of argument.

I would disagree with the assertion that two "Democratic" nations would NEVER go to war with each other.

I would however, support this statement: "Democratic nations rarely engage in wars of aggression against other democratic nations, absent substantial provocation or dire necessity."

And this one: "Autocracies, Oligarchies, Fascists and Theocracies are generally more likely to engage in wars of aggression than Democratic Republics."

Nations go to war mainly for one of these reasons:

1. Expansion, either of territory or influence, or the acquisition of resources.
2. Defense, including pre-emptive attack of a nation that seems to be a threat.
3. Other vital conflicts of intrest that are insoluble through diplomacy.

I think Number 3 is worth further consideration. Two "democratic" nations (whatever that really means) could still find themselves in an insoluble conflict of intrests. If both nations needed resources available in a border region to prevent their economies from collapsing, and there wasn't enough resource in that border region to share between the two of them, that might do it.


Pro-War Democrats Push Revisionist History at DNC

Beyond the fact that the Democrats&rsquo virtual national convention appeared to have been produced by a high school A/V department , the event was one of the most blatant exercises in revisionist history ever foisted on the American body politic.

While nominating one former senator who voted to authorize the Iraq War -- Joe Biden -- the DNC enlisted another , John Kerry, to portray Democrats as the &ldquoparty of peace.&rdquo

Biden and Kerry are career politicians who have supported war for the length of their time in Washington and are members of the military/industrial/congressional complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

&ldquo[Trump] doesn&rsquot know how to defend our troops,&rdquo Kerry claimed, based on a bogus and debunked &ldquoRussian bounties&rdquo scandal that he, President Obama, and Joe Biden either knew about or should have known about because it supposedly happened and was first reported under their watch.

Kerry and the rest of the Obama-Biden administration dramatically expanded the war in Afghanistan, leading to over 1,000 Americans killed in action, and dragged the country into new, thankless interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere &mdash never intending for them to win in the field.

These open-ended military engagements without military value or clearly defined objectives or outcomes result in the diminution of military morale and capability and simply grind up our finest men and women. Kerry even had the nerve to claim that &ldquoOur troops can&rsquot get out of harm&rsquos way by hiding in the White House bunker.&rdquo

Buried within that idiotic jibe about the president, who was following Secret Service protocol while radicals attacked U.S. Park Service Police outside the White House, Kerry unintentionally got something right.

Our overtaxed soldiers can only get out of harm&rsquos way if they have a president who is committed to 1) letting them win a war when they are deployed and then 2) getting them home and out of harm&rsquos way as soon as possible after the victory.

After fulfilling his promise to destroy ISIS, President Trump brought our troops home from Northern Syria &mdash where Kerry, Biden, and Obama had sent them to sit for years in a war zone for the benefit of &ldquomoderate rebels&rdquo (note: there is no such thing as a &ldquomoderate rebel&rdquo). Against incredible pressure from the foreign policy establishment, Donald Trump also committed to getting thousands of additional American troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Next up was Kerry&rsquos predecessor, Colin Powell, who was among the leading engineers of the Iraq War while serving as secretary of state under former President George W. Bush.

&ldquoOur country needs a commander-in-chief who takes care of our troops in the same way he would his own family,&rdquo Powell said while endorsing the Democratic ticket, as he has done in all four presidential elections since leaving office. &ldquoWith Joe Biden in the White House, you will never doubt that he will stand with our friends &hellip he will trust our diplomats and our intelligence community[.]&rdquo

Powell, after all, is the same man who sat before the United Nations Security Council and lied, bald faced , about weapons of mass destruction in order to start a war. How dare he talk about &ldquotaking care of our troops&rdquo when he is personally responsible &mdash as a politician, not a soldier &mdash for the deaths of 4,507 American servicemen and women? How dare the man who lied to and coerced our closest allies into needlessly sacrificing hundreds of their own brave soldiers in a quagmire of his own administration&rsquos creation talk of &ldquostanding with our friends?&rdquo How dare Powell &mdash who pushed obviously false intelligence reports that confirmed his views and twisted those that did not, and who elevated the word of self-interested Iranian-backed conmen into Gospel truth, humiliating America and undermining our credibility to this day &mdash talk of &ldquotrusting our intelligence community?&rdquo

The height of hypocrisy, however, came during the three-minute tribute to the long personal friendship between Biden and the late Sen. John McCain. &ldquoIt was a friendship that shouldn&rsquot have worked,&rdquo the narrator intoned .

Never addressed in the entire video is why that friendship &ldquoshouldn&rsquot have worked&rdquo &mdash in many ways, Biden and McCain were two sides of the same coin. The two men, both establishment figures in their respective parties and occasional presidential candidates, were integral members of the same Washington foreign policy &ldquoblob&rdquo for decades. To the extent that the two men differed on foreign policy views, it was only in that McCain was a more extreme devotee of the failed interventionism ideology to which they both subscribed.

John McCain was the single leading advocate of military adventurism in post-Cold War America. In addition to being the Iraq War&rsquos greatest booster, he also tried to push America to the brink of war with Russia. He tried to pressure our allies into adding the tiny, Russia-adjacent country of Georgia into NATO, which would have obligated us to go to war with a nuclear power over the breakaway &ldquorepublic&rdquo of South Ossetia, which has a population of just 53,000. When the Obama-Biden administration was bungling its schizophrenic intervention in Syria, McCain was right there on the ground, posing for photos with the jihadist-allied &ldquomoderate rebels.&rdquo

It is only thanks to a new breed of Republicans who repudiated and marginalized the Biden/McCain school&rsquos foreign policy views &mdash Donald Trump foremost among them &mdash that this country has avoided more of the saber-rattling lunacy of the Iraq War era. These new Republicans demand accountable use of the military. They believe the military should be used as a last resort, but when used should be given clear, achievable objectives and ALLOWED to win. They believe in ending the meandering, vague, and open-ended military engagements that cost blood and treasure but secure nothing for the U.S. or our allies &mdash engagements that Biden has openly called for and supported throughout his entire 47-year political career.

The consistently anti-Trump McCain&rsquos proxy endorsement from beyond the grave only proves the president&rsquos point: establishment figures from both parties were in cahoots with each other all along.

In 2016, Donald Trump called out the D.C. establishment&rsquos lies and the bellicose dogmatism that got thousands of Americans killed and permanently alienated many of our closest allies. Since then, the Trump administration has reoriented our foreign policy toward peace, restraint, effective and limited use of military power, and putting America first. Joe Biden would return us to the old ways, and all the revisionist history in the world can&rsquot change this fact.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (ret) is a Bronze Star recipient for combat in Afghanistan, a retired CIA-trained senior intelligence operations officer, and president of the London Center for Policy Research.


The Secret Racist History of the Democratic Party

Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels? How about Joseph Hayne Rainey? If not, you&rsquore not alone. I taught history and I never knew half of our nation&rsquos past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda.

Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it&rsquos the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties. Luckily, we can still venture back into America&rsquos real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things. Let&rsquos take a closer look.

An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they&rsquore all Republican!

  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901): Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War. He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America&rsquos first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894): Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman. He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868. In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874): Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868. From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops. He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled. Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man. However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses. But that didn&rsquot stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887): Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872. In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.

Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. How can this be? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic&rsquos founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation. Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress. This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead. Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864. Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise. Then there&rsquos the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.

In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party&rsquos achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn&rsquot elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!

Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party&rsquos alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats&rsquo struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK&rsquos first Grand Wizard. But don&rsquot bother checking the Democratic National Committee&rsquos website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they&rsquove scratched even more history. Apparently, they believe it&rsquos easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s. Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There&rsquos even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan&rsquos connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK&rsquos prominent role in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: &ldquoEvery Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation&hellip. Democrats must go in as large numbers&hellipand well-armed.&rdquo An issue of Harper&rsquos Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: &ldquoOf Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!&rdquo

This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.

The Klan&rsquos primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out &ldquopush cards&rdquo -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) &ldquoRadicals&rdquo of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.

Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work. Instead, they do it themselves. You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state&rsquos new right-to-work legislation stating, &ldquoWhoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.&rdquo An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, &ldquoThere will be blood!&rdquo

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It&rsquos a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today&rsquos Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms. This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled. If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself. There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition.

Kimberly Bloom Jackson is a former actress turned teacher who holds a doctorate in cultural anthropology. Her many writings on Hollywood, education, and culture can be found at SnoopingAnthropologist.com.

Have you heard of Josiah Walls or Hiram Rhodes Revels? How about Joseph Hayne Rainey? If not, you&rsquore not alone. I taught history and I never knew half of our nation&rsquos past until I began to re-educate myself by learning from original source materials, rather than modern textbooks written by progressive Democrats with an agenda.

Interestingly, Democrats have long ago erased these historic figures from our textbooks, only to offer deceitful propaganda and economic enticements in an effort to convince people, especially black Americans, that it&rsquos the Democrats rather than Republicans who are the true saviors of civil liberties. Luckily, we can still venture back into America&rsquos real historical record to find that facts are stubborn things. Let&rsquos take a closer look.

An 1872 print by Currier and Ives depicts the first seven black Americans elected to the U.S. Congress during the Reconstruction period of 1865 to 1877-- and they&rsquore all Republican!

  • Sen. Hiram Rhodes Revels, R-MS (1822-1901): Already an ordained minister, Revels served as an army chaplain and was responsible for recruiting three additional regiments during the Civil War. He was also elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1869 and the U.S. Senate in 1870, making him America&rsquos first black senator.
  • Rep. Benjamin Turner, R-AL (1825-1894): Within just five years, Turner went from slave to wealthy businessman. He also became a delegate to the Alabama Republican State Convention of 1867 and a member of the Selma City Council in 1868. In 1871, Turner was even elected to the U.S. Congress.
  • Rep. Robert DeLarge, R-SC (1842-1874): Although born a slave, DeLarge chaired the Republican Platform Committee in 1867 and served as delegate at the Constitutional Convention of 1868. From 1868 to 1870, he was also elected to the State House of Representatives and later Congress, serving from 1871 to 1873.
  • Rep. Josiah Walls, R-FL (1842-1905): Walls was a slave who was forced to fight for the Confederate Army until he was captured by Union troops. He promptly enlisted with the Union and eventually became an officer. In 1870, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. Unfortunately, harassing Democrats questioned his qualifications until he was officially expelled. Although he was re-elected after the first legal challenge, Democrats took control of Florida and Walls was prohibited from returning altogether.
  • Rep. Jefferson Long, R-GA (1836-1901): Long was also born into slavery, and he too became a successful business man. However, when Democrats boycotted his business he suffered substantial financial loses. But that didn&rsquot stop Long, who in 1871 became the first black representative to deliver a congressional speech in the U.S. House.
  • Rep. Joseph Hayne Rainey, R-SC (1832-1887): Although born a slave, Rainey became the first black Speaker of the U.S. House for a brief period in 1870. In fact, he served in Congress longer than any other black America at that time.
  • Rep. Robert Brown Elliot, R-SC (1842-1884): Elliot helped to organize the Republican Party throughout rural South Carolina. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1870 and reelected in 1872. In 1874, he was elected to the State House of Representatives and eventually served as Speaker of the House in the State Legislature.

Clearly, the latter half of the 19th Century, and for much of the early half of the 20th Century, it was the Republican Party that was the party of choice for blacks. How can this be? Because the Republican Party was formed in the late 1850s as an oppositional force to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. Republicans wanted to return to the principles that were originally established in the republic&rsquos founding documents and in doing so became the first party to openly advocated strong civil rights legislation. Voters took notice and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President along with a Republican Congress. This infuriated the southern Democrats, who soon afterwards left Congress and took their states with them to form what officially became known as The Slaveholding Confederate States of America.

Meanwhile, Republicans pushed full steam ahead. Take, for example, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution that officially abolished slavery in 1864. Of the 118 Republicans in Congress (House and Senate) at the time, all 118 voted in favor of the legislation, while only 19 of 82 Democrats voted likewise. Then there&rsquos the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments guaranteeing rights of citizenship and voting to black males. Not a single Democrat voted in favor of either the Fourteenth (House and Senate) or Fifteenth (House and Senate) Amendments.

In spite of this, in almost every Southern state, the Republican Party was actually formed by blacks, not whites. Case in point is Houston, Texas, where 150 blacks and 20 whites created the Republican Party of Texas. But perhaps most telling of all with respect to the Republican Party&rsquos achievements is that black men were continuously elected to public office. For example, 42 blacks were elected to the Texas legislature, 112 in Mississippi, 190 in South Carolina, 95 representatives and 32 senators in Louisiana, and many more elected in other states -- all Republican. Democrats didn&rsquot elect their first black American to the U.S. House until 1935!

Political Gangs With Pointy Hoods

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party&rsquos alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats&rsquo struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

This political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK&rsquos first Grand Wizard. But don&rsquot bother checking the Democratic National Committee&rsquos website for proof. For many years, even up through the 2012 Presidential Election, the DNC had omitted all related history from 1848 to 1900 from their timeline -- half a century worth! Now, for the 2016 election cycle, they&rsquove scratched even more history. Apparently, they believe it&rsquos easier to just lie and claim to have fought for civil rights for over 200 hundred years, while seeing fit to list only a select few distorted events as exemplary, beginning as late as the 1920s. Incredibly, the DNC conveniently jumps past more than 100 years of American history!

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented. There&rsquos even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan&rsquos connection to the Democratic Party. The official documents, titled Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, irrefutably proves the KKK&rsquos prominent role in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: &ldquoEvery Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation&hellip. Democrats must go in as large numbers&hellipand well-armed.&rdquo An issue of Harper&rsquos Weekly that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him. At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: &ldquoOf Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!&rdquo

This is reminiscent of the 2008 Presidential election when members of the New Black Panther Party hung out at a Philadelphia precinct wielding big batons.

The Klan&rsquos primary mission was to intimidate Republicans -- black and white. In South Carolina, for example, the Klan even passed out &ldquopush cards&rdquo -- a hit list of 63 (50 blacks and 13 whites) &ldquoRadicals&rdquo of the legislature pictured on one side and their names listed on the other. Democrats called Republicans radicals not just because they were a powerful political force, but because they allowed blacks to participate in the political process. Apparently, this was all too much for Democrats to bear.

By 1875, Republicans, both black and white, had worked together to pass over two dozen civil rights bills. Unfortunately, their momentum came to a screeching halt in 1876 when the Democratic Party took control of Congress. Hell bent on preventing blacks from voting, Southern Democrats devised nearly a dozen shady schemes, like requiring literacy tests, misleading election procedures, redrawing election lines, changing polling locations, creating white-only primaries, and even rewriting state constitutions. Talk about disenfranchising black voters!

There were also lynchings, but not what you might think. According to the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, between 1882 and 1964 an estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,279 whites were lynched at the hands of the Klan.

Today, the Democratic Party no longer needs the help of political gangs wearing pointy hoods to do their dirty work. Instead, they do it themselves. You may recall the case of black Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, who was brutally beaten by two SEIU members during a 2009 health care town hall meeting. In February 2011, a union thug with Communications Workers of America was caught on tape physically assaulting a young female FreedomWorks activist in Washington, DC. Then in 2012, Michigan Education Association President Steve Cook jumped on the protest bandwagon against the state&rsquos new right-to-work legislation stating, &ldquoWhoever votes for this is not going to have any peace for the next two years.&rdquo An even worse threat was issued on the floor of the Michigan House of Representatives the next day by Democratic Representative Douglas Geiss who charged, &ldquoThere will be blood!&rdquo

As we forge ahead into this critical 2016 election season, let us not forget the real history of America when blacks and whites, primarily Republicans, worked side by side defending the rights and dignity of all Americans. It&rsquos a history that has been kept out of the history books--a history that today&rsquos Democrats routinely lie about while promptly pointing their finger at Republicans, calling white Republicans racists and black Republicans Uncle Toms. This is because Democrats have a secret past that must be protected and an agenda that must be fulfilled. If history is any indication of what the future might hold, brace yourself. There will be some in the Democratic Party who will be prepared to do whatever it takes to silence any opposition.