Politics Do Blacks Prefer The Democrats That Owned Them As Slave Or The Ones Putting Them On The

Which political party in America had the most slave owners supporting it?

That should be considered a trick question. First, because one of our current parties was founded with the sole purpose of destroying slavery and two, because those abolitionist founders of that party, the republican party (the Liberals of the day) abandoned the very same party, just 30 years later because of corruption among its ranks that favored big business, promoted income inequality and a society hostile to the majority of its citizens.Making any compariasions of the ‘republican party’ of 1865 with the one that exists today is disingenuous at best. They are two entirely different parties. Between 1860 & the early 1890's the Republican party was Liberal. After that the Liberals (the Abolitionists founders) left and became Democrats. That did not however make the Democratic Party completely liberal for many decades. The southern politicians of non Liberal ilk held onto the Denocratic label because they were afraid of losing votes and they knew they had a dim witted voting base, whom they had just spent the last 30 years propagandizing, with the demonization of the newly freed black Americans. Those southern voters had vowed never to vote for a republicon, because the republicons had freed the slaves. That remaining portion of southern politicians, to clarify, I will call them ‘conservatives’ {whatever that means}, in the Democratic Party, were called dixiecrats. What we meant by that was, they were not real Democrats.As far as your question goes you should be asking in terms of, ‘conservatives ‘ (whatever thst means) or Liberals, because there is NO connection between a Democrat of the 1860-1890's and today. Which is for the most part the 19th century existence of that party. The same thing gets done repeatedly, when you people try to point out that there were Democrats who voted against Civil Rights legislation. Yes there were, they were Dixiecrats. This looks like a cheap attempt to paint Democrats as abusive slave owners or racist bigots because you don't know your political history, when nothing could be further from the truth. JSYK, we have history books…..

In American history, has any Republican ever owned a slave?

Ulysses S. Grant was a Republican president who once had slaves. However, there’s some nuance that should be considered before this factoid gets repeated out of context.First, Grant was not personally highly invested in the subject of slavery. He used slaves that were owned by his father-in-law, only one of which did he legally own. Furthermore, he freed that slave rather than selling him, which was a significant opportunity cost.Secondly, at the time in question the Republican Party was a fledgling and poorly-defined entity, and Grant didn’t clearly associate himself with it until a decade later after Lincoln had become president.Thirdly, this type of historical trivium is fundamentally deceptive because institutions change and reinvent themselves. That is, any comparison about “x number of Democrats had slaves while only y number of Republicans did” is fundamentally meaningless because it insinuates associations that aren’t relevant to contemporary politics. The pool of Democrats who could have owned slaves is much larger than the pool of Republicans who could have simply because the Democratic Party is significantly older. And while the Republican Party was established with an interest in the Abolitionist Movement, it lost any claim to being less racist by instituting the Southern Strategy to elect Nixon.Some individual Republicans deserve credit for acknowledging the injustice of the Southern Strategy, but as an institution the party has failed to adequately address the subject in a way that would indicate sincere contrition or a will to fix the problem.