the Conservative TAKE
Politics • Culture • News
Debunking Adam-Troy Castro’s Anti-Trump Lies and Leftist Hypocrisy
All they do is lie.
post photo preview
revised 3/8/25 06:46pm EST

A real question from a Biden supporter: "Why do conservatives think liberals are clueless?"
THE SERIOUS ANSWER: Here’s what the majority of pro-Trump Americans honestly feel about Biden supporters en masse:
That when you saw a man who pushed a fraudulent student loan bailout, intent on scamming taxpayers, you thought, "Fine."

See what we did there? This is merely a mirror of how Adam-Troy Castro’s article starts. It proves that anything can be worded to fit a narrative—whether true or not. The left manipulates language to push an emotional, misleading argument rather than relying on facts.

But we don’t live in a world of narratives—we live in a world of facts. And facts don’t change just because the media spins them a certain way.


The left has mastered the art of deception, and Adam-Troy Castro’s recent hit piece is a textbook example of how Democrats weaponize misinformation, strawman arguments, and outright lies to demonize Trump supporters. The irony? They accuse conservatives of being uninformed while parroting mainstream media fabrications without a shred of independent thought.

Let’s break down every false claim, expose the hypocrisy, and highlight the true racist and communist leanings of the Democrat Party. All sources are below.

1. Trump University Was a Scam? False Equivalence

Castro’s Claim: Trump “owned a fraudulent university” that scammed poor people.

Reality: The Trump University lawsuit was a civil case, not a criminal fraud case. Trump settled—not because of guilt, but because fighting frivolous lawsuits is often more expensive than settling. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to champion actual fraudsters like Elizabeth Warren, who lied about being Native American to get ahead, or Joe Biden, who plagiarized his way through law school. Where’s the outrage for them?

Hypocrisy Alert: The left pretends to care about financial fraud but ignores the Biden family’s corrupt foreign dealings with China and Ukraine.


2. Trump Stiffed Creditors? Dishonest Spin

Castro’s Claim: Trump refused to pay creditors.

Reality: Trump, like any businessman, faced lawsuits from vendors. But so did Amazon, Microsoft, and even Barack Obama’s failed solar company, Solyndra. Business disputes happen. However, what about Joe Biden’s shady pay-for-play schemes? Hunter Biden raked in millions selling access to his father—that’s actual corruption.

Hypocrisy Alert: The same people who whine about Trump’s business deals ignore how the Clintons made billions off the Clinton Foundation, promising favors in exchange for donations.


3. Trump’s “Sexual Abuse” Brag? Media Manipulation

Castro’s Claim: Trump admitted to sexual abuse on tape.

Reality: The infamous “Access Hollywood” tape was a private conversation taken out of context. He said that when you’re rich, women let you do anything—which is about celebrity culture, not assault.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden has been credibly accused of sexual assault by Tara Reade, and Bill Clinton flew to Epstein’s island 26 times. If Democrats actually cared about sexual misconduct, they wouldn’t have protected Clinton or defended Hollywood predators like Harvey Weinstein.

Hypocrisy Alert: The left ignores actual rapists but virtue-signals over a decade-old tape of Trump talking about consensual relationships.


4. Trump’s 9/11 “Cheering Muslims” Story? Misrepresented

Castro’s Claim: Trump lied about Muslim-Americans celebrating 9/11.

Reality: There were reports of some people celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, but the media conveniently tried to suppress them. Numerous eyewitness accounts confirm that there were pockets of people in Paterson and Jersey City who did, in fact, cheer.

Hypocrisy Alert: The same people who call Trump a liar covered up Biden’s repeated fabrications about his academic history, his supposed “civil rights activism,” and his blatant race-baiting.
https://nj1015.com/these-people-say-they-all-saw-911-celebrations-in-nj-firsthand/


5. Trump Mocked the Disabled? Media Deception

Castro’s Claim: Trump mocked a disabled reporter.

Reality: This is one of the biggest media lies of the 2016 election. Trump often waves his hands and exaggerates speech patterns when imitating people he thinks are flustered—not just disabled people. Video evidence shows he used the same mannerisms when mocking Ted Cruz and a general.

Hypocrisy Alert: Democrats pretend to be champions of the disabled while pushing abortion laws that allow the killing of disabled babies up until birth.



6. Central Park Five? Manipulating the Facts

Castro’s Claim: Trump wanted the Central Park Five in prison even after their exoneration.

Reality: The Central Park Five were not innocent angels—they were in the park beating and robbing people the night of the attack. Their confessions were not coerced, and evidence suggests they were involved in gang assaults.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden wrote the 1994 Crime Bill, which disproportionately jailed black men, but somehow, the left ignores this.

Hypocrisy Alert: The party that built the KKK and enforced Jim Crow now pretends to be racial justice warriors while backing policies that destroy black communities.


7. Trump Encouraged Violence? Misrepresented Again

Castro’s Claim: Trump told supporters to “beat up” protesters.

Reality: He jokingly said he’d pay legal fees for supporters defending themselves against violent leftist agitators who were attacking Trump rallies. Meanwhile, BLM and Antifa mobs burned down cities, assaulted Trump supporters, and even murdered people, and Democrats called them “mostly peaceful protests.”

Hypocrisy Alert: The left openly supports violence when it’s their side doing it. They bailed out rioters in 2020 but called January 6 an “insurrection.”


8. Trump Profiting from the Presidency? Laughable Accusation

Castro’s Claim: Trump profited off his presidency.

Reality: Trump lost over $1 billion while in office because he put America first. Meanwhile, the Biden family sold out to China, Ukraine, and Russia, making millions through Hunter’s shady deals.

Hypocrisy Alert: Democrats don’t care about government profiteering—they just don’t want outsiders like Trump exposing their racket.


9. Trump’s “Racism” and “Nazi” Allegations? Fake News

Castro’s Claim: Trump courted neo-Nazis.

Reality: The media twisted Trump’s “very fine people” comment from Charlottesville. He specifically condemned white supremacists in the same speech. Meanwhile, Joe Biden gave a eulogy for KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd.

Hypocrisy Alert: The left wants you to believe Trump is a Nazi, but they support Marxist policies that killed millions under Stalin, Mao, and Castro.
opes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/ (EVEN SNOPES DEBUNKED)


10. Immigration Lies: Obama Built the Cages

Castro’s Claim: Trump put kids in cages.

Reality: Obama built the cages in 2014. Trump simply enforced immigration laws already on the books. The left cried over “kids in cages” but ignored the Biden administration’s horrific border crisis, with children being trafficked at record levels.

Hypocrisy Alert: The same Democrats who claim to care about migrants support open borders that empower cartels and lead to child exploitation.


The Real Reason Liberals Think Trump Supporters Are “Stupid”

The left doesn’t actually believe Trump supporters are stupid. They just can’t stand that millions of Americans reject their radical ideology.

They don’t want to have a real debate. Instead, they lie, manipulate, and resort to personal attacks because they have no real solutions.

If supporting a secure border, strong economy, and American sovereignty makes someone "stupid," then maybe the real problem isn’t intelligence—it’s the left’s intellectual dishonesty and hatred for everyday Americans.

In other words....

The Democrat Party is the party of Marxism, division, and authoritarian control. They call Trump supporters racist, yet their policies keep minority communities trapped in poverty. They call conservatives “anti-democratic,” yet they want to censor speech, take your guns, and destroy election integrity.

The truth is, Trump supporters aren’t stupid. They’re awake. And that’s what really terrifies the left.



Debunking the Lies – Source List

Trump University Lawsuit

🔹 Trump University Lawsuit Was a Civil Case, Not Criminal
📌 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

Trump’s Business Dealings

🔹 Lawsuits in Business Are Common—Even Amazon, Microsoft, and Obama’s Solyndra Faced Them
📌 https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/us-solyndra-issa-idUSTRE79960J20111010/

🔹 Joe Biden’s Sexual Assault Accuser, Tara Reade
📌 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kzx_rFntCU

9/11 Celebration Controversy

🔹 Reports Confirm Some People in New Jersey Did Cheer 9/11
📌https://nj1015.com/these-people-say-they-all-saw-911-celebrations-in-nj-firsthand/

Trump “Mocking the Disabled” – Proven False

🔹 Trump Used the Same Mannerisms to Mock Others, Including Ted Cruz
📌https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9f4Q85B8A


Central Park Five – The Full Story

🔹 Our Video That Exposes the Truth – Over 13 Million Views
📌 Watch on YouTube

🔹 Central Park Five Were Involved in Criminal Activity the Night of the Attack
📌

Trump’s “Violence” Claims vs. Democrat-Endorsed Riots

🔹 Trump Did not Encouraged Violence – Media Distortion
📌https://x.com/MSMCali/status/1604933544618340352
📌https://x.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/880506923065507840

🔹 Democrats Encouraged 2020 Riots and Bailed Out Violent Criminals
📌 https://x.com/ErrolWebber/status/1840789484977389902

Trump’s “Profiting” vs. Biden’s Corrupt Family Business

🔹 Trump Lost Over $1 Billion While in Office
📌 https://x.com/BelannF/status/1880427152933548339

🔹 Hunter Biden’s Deals with China & Ukraine
📌 New York Post

The “Very Fine People” Hoax

🔹 Trump Explicitly Condemned White Supremacists in Charlottesville
📌https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/ (SNOPES)

🔹 Joe Biden Eulogized KKK Leader Robert Byrd
📌 https://x.com/JDunlap1974/status/1823026775946895390

Obama Built the Cages – Not Trump

🔹 Obama’s Immigration Policies Created the “Kids in Cages” Narrative
📌 https://theconservativetake.locals.com/post/3707730/the-separation-of-minors-of-illegal-immigrants📌https://x.com/listen_2learn/status/1865884300157362418

🔹 Biden’s Border Crisis is the Real Disaster
📌 https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/15/dont-buy-the-medias-spin-about-illegal-border-crossings-being-down


Every single point in Castro’s anti-Trump smear piece is based on lies, distortions, or outright hypocrisy. Democrats accuse Trump supporters of being ignorant, yet they themselves rely on manipulated narratives and corporate media talking points.

community logo
Join the the Conservative TAKE Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
Odds of Love: A Probability Study Proving Jasmine Crockett’s Race Baiting Ignores the Real Challenges of Finding a Conservative Black Match

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Representative Jasmine Crockett’s recent criticism of Representative Byron Donalds for marrying a white woman highlights a regressive mindset steeped in ignorance and racial bias, casting doubt on her ability to engage with the diverse realities of American life.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1906302926571618409

By implying that Donalds has been “whitewashed” through his interracial marriage, Crockett clings to outdated stereotypes that dictate racial loyalty over personal agency, exposing her own hypocrisy in advocating for equality while policing others’ private choices. This narrow perspective stands in stark contrast to the evolving dynamics of relationships across racial lines, as evidenced by a probabilistic analysis of partner selection among conservative Black individuals. To illustrate the complexity of such dynamics, consider the following study estimating the likelihood of a conservative Black man finding and marrying a conservative Black woman who aligns with his values—a scenario Crockett might deem more “acceptable,” yet one fraught with its own...

00:00:46
00:01:20
Biblical Citizenship in Modern America Commentary Ep14 - Understanding the Times 3

00:00 Introduction
02:03 Week 13 review
04:56 Our Current Education System
05:59 Six Verbs for Advancing Truth in the Country
09:08 What Our Elected Officials Don't Know About America
10:44 The Foundation of Law
12:12 Who Were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence?
13:52 Benjamin Rush
15:44 What is Patriotism?
18:34 Summary of Workbook

00:25:36

Just my opinion, but it seems like a lot of people are grifting off Charlie Kirk’s memory for clicks. I’m not saying everyone, and shoot, I could probably be accused of the same thing. Fair point. My team is waiting for at least the funeral before putting out a full load of content... but the former just doesn’t feel right. Full disclosure: I did a one-hour livestream that night and was a guest on another show a few days later, but that’s about it.

I truly appreciate the sincere takes from people who’ve had the courage to speak. So all I’m really asking for is discernment and tastefulness, at least until after the funeral. But that’s just me, and just my opinion.

What I do know is this: The Left is already spinning (and distracting away from) this. I submit that are trying desperately to ease their guilt, undermine Charlie’s vision, and divide MAGA. They are trying to save their (soon to be out of power for the foreseeable future) Democrat Party.

The real takeaway is...

🧨 The Deep State’s Attempt to Spin Damning Declassified Evidence

As declassified documents continue to expose what appears to be a coordinated intelligence operation against Donald Trump, the Deep State and their media allies are in full damage-control mode.

Case in point: Fox News just featured an op-ed by former CIA officer and Biden State Department spokesman Ned Price, attempting to “debunk” the bombshells released by DNI Tulsi Gabbard.

Make no bones about it, this isn’t an objective counterpoint. This is a narrative-management operation by a career Deep State insider.

🕵️‍♂️ Here’s What They’re Trying to Sell You:
That Obama couldn’t have led a coup because… he congratulated Trump after the election. (Yes, seriously.)

That Gabbard is using “sleight of hand” and “conflating” terms, even though her claims are backed by declassified U.S. intelligence.

That the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was sound , even though multiple internal reviews, the Durham Report, and Senate oversight found evidence it was politicized.

That the ...

post photo preview
Why Subpoena Them If They’ll Plead the Fifth? Because It’s Protocol for Prosecution.

Here is what many do not understand. I get the frustration but there is a method to the madness. Let me explain.

Subpoenaing Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Clapper, and others over the RussiaGate scandal (even if they ultimately plead the Fifth) is not just a procedural move; it’s a necessary step in any serious pursuit of justice and public accountability.

🔹 Why Subpoena Them?

1. Establish the Record:

You must formally bring these individuals under oath to compel their testimony. Whether they answer or invoke the Fifth, the act of subpoenaing is essential to build the official record and demonstrate due diligence in investigating the alleged conspiracy.

2. Indictment Requires Precedent:

Before a prosecutor can credibly seek an indictment (especially against former high-level officials) there must be an evidentiary trail. That includes prior sworn testimony or refusal to testify. Subpoenaing them is a legal and political prerequisite to indictments.

3. Public Opinion Matters:

...

post photo preview
Lafayette: The Fire and the Fog

Act 1: Foundations and Fault Lines

In a quiet chateau nestled in the green hills of Auvergne, a boy was born into a name older than most nations. Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier—known simply as Gilbert to those who loved him—would grow to be one of history’s most celebrated revolutionaries. But from the very start, Lafayette's world was one of contradictions.

He was born into nobility, yet surrounded by stories of poverty and loss. His father, a decorated grenadier, was killed by a British cannonball before Lafayette ever saw his face. His mother, devastated by grief, fled to Paris, leaving young Gilbert to be raised by his stern but kind grandmother in the countryside. She taught him duty, discipline, and stories of battlefield glory. Under the watchful eyes of abbés and aristocrats, Lafayette soaked in the values of the French Enlightenment. Reason, liberty, the rights of man—these became the drumbeat of his youth.

But knowledge alone doesn’t make a man wise.

From the halls of Paris to the salons of Versailles, Lafayette learned to charm and maneuver. He married Adrienne de Noailles, a fourteen-year-old girl from one of France’s most powerful families. At sixteen, Lafayette was rich, married, and well on his way to joining the king’s elite guard. But behind the courtly elegance, something restless stirred in his heart. He longed for purpose—glory, as he called it. The kind that would echo through time.

So when whispers of rebellion across the Atlantic reached his ears, he was enthralled. America, a land fighting for liberty against the British—the very empire that had taken his father—became an obsession. Even when King Louis XVI forbade it, Lafayette defied him, sneaking across the sea to join George Washington’s struggling army.

From a worldly point of view, it was heroic. A young man leaving behind wealth, a pregnant wife, and privilege to fight for strangers. But beneath the idealism, there was a flaw—a subtle one, but dangerous.

Lafayette believed that man could save himself.

Through reason. Through revolution. Through liberty unanchored from any higher truth.

He didn’t yet understand what the Bible makes clear: that the heart of man is “deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9), and that liberty without virtue is just another form of chaos. Lafayette loved the idea of freedom, but he lacked a framework that could keep that freedom from becoming an idol. He was, in many ways, a knight in search of a cause—but without a compass pointing to God's moral order.

While Lafayette crossed the Atlantic in search of glory, Adrienne was left behind in Paris, pregnant and alone. She received glowing letters—tales of cannons and courage—but little concern for her own trials. She had married a boy still chasing the ghost of a father he barely knew.

In America, Lafayette was welcomed… reluctantly. The Continental Congress had seen too many glory-seeking Europeans hoping to play general. At first, they dismissed him. But when Lafayette offered to serve without pay, and when they read letters of praise from Benjamin Franklin, they reconsidered. Lafayette was given the honorary title of major-general—though he would command no troops.

He met George Washington soon after, and an unexpected friendship blossomed. Washington, a man of discipline and restraint, took the fiery Frenchman under his wing. Lafayette found in Washington a father figure, and in the American cause, a sense of belonging.

But even as Lafayette fought bravely in battle—earning respect and even suffering wounds—he never stopped chasing applause. And back in France, Adrienne suffered silently, raising children alone, enduring gossip about Lafayette’s rumored mistresses, and using her influence to protect his reputation.

She loved him. He often forgot to love her in return.

The story of Lafayette was already being written in two parallel threads: the public hero, adored on two continents, and the private man, blind to the cost others paid for his ambitions.

Even his noblest efforts—his fight for liberty, his calls to end slavery, his dreams of global reform—were built on a foundation that was subtly cracked.

He believed, as many Enlightenment thinkers did, that humanity was basically good, that progress was inevitable, and that the right ideas could fix the world.

But history—and Scripture—tell a different story.

"Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127:1)

Lafayette’s foundation was bold. But it wasn’t biblical.

And the storm was coming.

Let me know if you're ready for Act 2: Fallout and Fractures. It will dive into the French Revolution, betrayal from both sides, Adrienne’s suffering, and the unraveling of Lafayette’s ideals.


Act 2: Fallout and Fractures


The smell of smoke lingered in the Paris air. The Bastille had fallen. The people roared. The king trembled. And in the center of it all stood Lafayette—beloved by some, cursed by others, and no longer sure who he truly was.

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
Slavery, Union, and Constitutional Compromise: A Study of the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment (1860–1861)

Abstract

This article explores two major political proposals advanced in the final months before the American Civil War: the Crittenden Compromise (1860) and the Corwin Amendment (1861). Both efforts sought to preserve the Union through constitutional concessions on slavery. We examine their content, motivations, political support and opposition, and how they reflected  (and ultimately failed to resolve) the irreconcilable tensions between North and South. Special attention is given to the evolving role of President-elect and later President Abraham Lincoln, whose principled opposition to slavery’s expansion shaped Republican resistance to compromise efforts. The article situates these proposals within a broader constitutional framework of federalism, natural rights, and the limits of amendment power.

I. Introduction

In the months following Abraham Lincoln’s election in November 1860, the United States faced an unprecedented crisis. Southern states began seceding from the Union, fearing that a Republican administration would restrict or abolish slavery. As secessionist sentiment grew, Congress and national leaders proposed several last-ditch efforts to avoid civil war through constitutional compromise. Among the most notable were the Crittenden Compromise, introduced in December 1860, and the Corwin Amendment, proposed in early 1861. Though differing in scope and content, both proposals reflect the extent to which the federal government was willing to entrench slavery in constitutional law in hopes of maintaining Union.

II. The Crittenden Compromise

A. Background and Purpose

On December 18, 1860, Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky introduced a series of six proposed constitutional amendments and four congressional resolutions, collectively known as the Crittenden Compromise. Crittenden, a member of the Constitutional Union Party, sought to calm Southern fears and avert secession by providing federal guarantees for slavery.

B. Main Provisions

The core elements of the compromise included:

  • A constitutional amendment reinstating the Missouri Compromise line (36°30′ N latitude), permanently prohibiting slavery north of the line and guaranteeing it south of the line in current and future U.S. territories (U.S. Senate Journal, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1860).

  • A prohibition on Congress interfering with slavery in states where it already existed.

  • A federal guarantee for enforcement of fugitive slave laws.

  • A requirement that future constitutional amendments could not abolish or interfere with slavery in slaveholding states.

C. Reception and Defeat

The Crittenden Compromise was broadly supported by Southern politicians and some Northern moderates, but strongly opposed by Republicans, including Lincoln, who rejected any compromise that would allow the expansion of slavery into new territories. Through backchannels and private correspondence, Lincoln discouraged Republican senators from supporting the proposal (Basler, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 4, p. 152).

The compromise ultimately failed in committee in January 1861, and its defeat accelerated Southern secession.

III. The Corwin Amendment

A. Introduction and Legislative History

In the aftermath of the Crittenden proposal’s failure and with several states having already seceded, Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced a new constitutional amendment intended to reassure the South. The Corwin Amendment passed the House on February 28, 1861, and the Senate on March 2, 1861, just days before Lincoln’s inauguration.

The proposed text read:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
— Congressional Globe, 36th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1861)

B. Purpose and Scope

Unlike the Crittenden Compromise, which addressed slavery in territories, the Corwin Amendment focused exclusively on preserving slavery in existing states, permanently prohibiting Congress or any future constitutional amendment from interfering with state domestic institutions, including slavery.

It was a more limited proposal, intended as a symbolic assurance to slave states that the federal government would not abolish slavery where it existed, even under future administrations.

C. Lincoln’s Position

Though a longtime opponent of slavery’s expansion, Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861:

“I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
— Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (1861)

Lincoln directed Secretary of State William Seward to send the amendment to the states for ratification. Some states, including Ohio and Maryland, ratified it, but the amendment never achieved the necessary approval from three-fourths of the states, especially as war broke out shortly after.

IV. Comparative Analysis

FeatureCrittenden CompromiseCorwin Amendment
ProposedDec 1860Feb–Mar 1861
ProposerSen. John Crittenden (KY)Rep. Thomas Corwin (OH)
Key ObjectiveAllow slavery south of 36°30′ in territoriesConstitutionally prohibit federal interference with slavery in states
Lincoln’s ViewOpposedSupported (as peace gesture)
StatusRejected in committeePassed Congress; unratified
Amendment NatureMultiple amendments and resolutionsSingle proposed amendment
Historical ResultFailed to prevent secessionSuperseded by Civil War and 13th Amendment


V. Constitutional and Originalist Considerations

A. Federalism and State Sovereignty

The Corwin Amendment affirmed the federalist structure of the Constitution, where states retained authority over domestic institutions, including slavery. Its logic aligned with the Madisonian view that powers not delegated to the federal government remained with the states (see Federalist No. 45).

B. Limits on Constitutional Amendment Power

The Corwin Amendment attempted to shield certain subjects from future amendment. Although Article V allows for limitations (as with the equal suffrage of states in the Senate), many legal scholars debate whether any constitutional amendment can permanently bar future amendments. This raises complex issues about constitutional entrenchment.

C. Slavery and the Founding Vision

The Crittenden and Corwin proposals represent divergent paths in response to a growing national crisis. While the Founding generation accepted slavery as a temporary evil (e.g., Madison at the Constitutional Convention), these 1860–1861 efforts reflect a move to permanently constitutionalize an institution many of the founders viewed as incompatible with natural rights.

VI. Conclusion

Both the Crittenden Compromise and the Corwin Amendment reveal the lengths to which American politicians were willing to go to preserve the Union through accommodation of slavery. However, their failure also underscores the irreconcilability of a republic founded on liberty with a system built on bondage. Abraham Lincoln’s careful balancing act was opposing slavery’s expansion while tolerating its existence where entrenched, framed the constitutional limits of compromise.

With the firing on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, the era of compromise ended. The actual 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, would abolish slavery entirely,  reversing the direction of both earlier proposals and reaffirming the Declaration’s principle that all men are created equal.

Sources

Read full Article
The Prophet of Progress: Woodrow Wilson's Road to Power and Ruin

Act I: Foundations and Fault Lines


Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in 1856 into a deeply religious Southern Presbyterian family. His father, Joseph Ruggles Wilson, was a respected minister and educator. His mother, Janet—called Jessie—was a devoted Scottish churchwoman. From the outside, the Wilson home seemed soaked in Scripture and tradition, but beneath the surface, a different foundation was quietly forming.

As a boy, “Tommy” Wilson was clever but struggled to read until age twelve—what today might be considered dyslexia. Still, he grew to admire ideas and institutions more than people. Though he spent his childhood in the Confederate South during the Civil War, the conflict seemed to leave little mark on him emotionally. His loyalties remained Southern, though, and he absorbed the white supremacist thinking that had gripped post-war Democratic circles.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals