Democrats used to be known as Democratic-Republicans, and before that they were the Anti-Federalist faction of the political system in America. Their historical presence has been one in which their belief that no federal government should ever control predominantly the destiny of a state or newly forming territory in the New World in regard to the formation of our governmental structure. This disruptive dogma supported within those who adhered to the ideology of the Anti-Federalist, still today proves to be the guiding principles of Democrat Party, where the evidence of this is plain to see in Democrat run cities that defy Federal laws.
Slavery in America did not start because of the Democrats; the colonists who arrived in the New World were simply following a historical norm that every society on the planet at that time followed. However, the Democrats’ identity politics help to foster the perceptive narrative of the black race from Africa now enslaved in the New World. (Library of Philadelphia, 2016)
It didn’t take long in the New World for farmers to realize that having a large number of people to work their fields would generate a profit; the more people, the bigger the crop they could harvest. Slavery was an investment where farmers could purchase a slave and own that slave for life to work those fields, not to mention the fact that if you bred your slaves, then their children would add to your investment, and your investment could become a generational thing where you paid one price and yielded a lifetime of profit.
The rhetoric of the proslavery movement in the New World consistently depicted the black slave as an illiterate race of people who were thankful for being out of their jungle life and living and working happily on their plantation farms, where life was being portrayed as beneficial to the black race. The dark skin of the black race was easily characterized as sinister and easily connected to the fear center of people’s imagination. The muscular disposition of black men created an apprehensive atmosphere about them, as one who needed to be chained always because of his ability and natural strengths to overpower others. So, it goes without saying that this constant depiction, written about in stories, portrayed in illustrations, and spread constantly throughout communities in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s was three hundred years of what many in the general population came to understand about the black race.
As abolition of slavery spread, this fear of the black race was something the proslavery activist fed to the population. However, it should be clearly understood that the profit of the proslavery farmers was behind much of the financial and social push to keep this mythical portrayal of the black race alive within the minds of those in their communities in an effort to counter the religious doctrine and abolitionist movement.
Proslavery farmers understood that to ensure that the law of the country had a voice in Washington that represented their interests, they made sure that those sent to Washington supplied the voice needed to keep the federal government in check. This push to be represented in Washington dates back to the Anti-Federalist movement where they stood in opposition of the creation of a constitution and were unwilling to discharge their rights to the federal government, especially since there was much debate about the state of slavery in the newly-formed country. These Anti-Federalists wanted to give more rights to the states than the federal government; they did not want the federal government to dictate whether they had a right to own slaves in their perspective states.
In the drafting and debate of the Constitution, they openly opposed Article 1, Section 9, of the US Constitution that states, The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight… (Fathers, 1787). They fought strongly to ignore the Constitution when the time arrived where the words of the Constitution could be enacted. The Act of 1807 that went into effect in 1808 outlawed the importation of slaves into America, so the Anti-Federalist, now the Democrat Party, began a vigorous campaign to shut down the antislavery and abolitionist movements that had spread throughout the country. They formed coalitions throughout parts of the country where they fed the narrative of the dangers of the black race and equally compared those who were antislavery to those of the black race, and these nigger-lovers were to be treated as harshly as one might treat a black slave.
Regardless of the Act of 1807 that criminalized the importation of slavery, only one person was ever punished to the full extent of the law for breaking the law of trying to import slaves into the country, and that was the aforementioned Nathaniel Gordon in 1862, who was hanged because President Lincoln refused his pardon (Soodalter, 2012).
So, with little to no enforcement of the laws on the books, the Democrat Party continued the practice of slavery and did everything they could to push this practice into the new territories. They employed radical factions throughout the 1800s to silence those who dared oppose slavery, did everything they could to win elections to ensure their representatives in Washington protected their interest. The Act of 1807 brought to life one of the Democrat Party factions known as the Fire-Eaters, who did everything they could to reopen the importation of slavery into America. They began trying to frighten opposing voters with the notion that electing anyone other than a Democrat could lead to secession. Where they were also willing to move toward breaking up the Union if voters voted for anyone who disagreed with that notion. Around the mid-1850s these Fire-Eaters started confrontations between the antislavery and proslavery border of Kansas, which at the time was a territory getting ready to enter the Union and deciding whether it would be a free or slave state. This confrontation attitude by the proslavery individuals went all the way to the halls of the Senate floor where Preston Brooks, a Democrat and proslavery advocate, nearly beat to death with his cane Charles Sumner, a Free-Soiler as well as a Republican supporter and abolitionist.
The conflicts that occurred in Kansas and the halls of the US Senate were a bloody preamble to the Civil War that would occur a few years later.
For the record, Kansas entered the Union as a free state, where slavery was not allowed within the states borders.
In 1856 the first Republican, John C. Frémont, ran for office and was beaten by Democrat James Buchanan. The Democrat Party used every means possible to ensure a win, even getting illegal aliens to vote in the election, as well as threatening recession should a Republican win.
It was at this time they wrote their 1856 political party platform, which was in fact a declaration of war should the push continue to disrupt slavery and restrict its movement into the new territories.
Library of Philadelphia. (2016). Heister Clymer. Retrieved from Civil War Blog: A project of PA Historian: http://civilwar.gratzpa.org/2016/04/heister-clymer-white-supremacist-candidate-for-governor-1866/
Fathers, F. (1787). The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription. Retrieved from National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-section-2-
Soodalter, R. (2012). The Limits of Lincoln’s Mercy. The New York Times
Excerpt From: Historical Relevance of The Black Vote