Movie Review: Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016)

Viewed this as the theater yesterday.  It is Dinesh D'Souza's work.  He is the filmmaker who was imprisoned for an illegal cash donation to his friend.  It is a must see.  It really presents many things I have been thinking.  I have had these questions for so long.
How can the party of the Indian Removal Act (Trail of Tears), slavery, Jim Crow, the Klu Klux Klan, racist after racist, Black lynching, voting against Civil Rights (in 1886), Japanese relocation ( I added this one), President Woodrow Wilson reinvigorating the Klu Klux Klan with showing "Birth of a nation" in the White House (the first movie screened in the White House), against women's suffrage, eugenics, and so many other abuses.  
They promote the line that the parties shifted places; that the racist switched parties.  D'Souza refutes this claim.  However for some reason, under Lyndon Johnson the Democrat Party took over the moniker of being for the minority.  Could that be true.  Her is a quote form President Johnson from the movie website.  

Although seen in a positive light for signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, Johnson had other motives behind supporting the civil rights legislation. He is known to have said to Sen. Richard Russell "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them" in regards to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. But, by giving blacks just enough, he would have "them niggers voting Democratic for two hundred years."
D'Souza then goes back and takes a look at Hillary Clinton, and all the things she has to hide.  The most disgusting to me is how she was able to use her government positions to enrichen herself.  That is not  suppose to happen.  However it happened time and again, and we as a country have been compromised as a result.  Bill Clinton would give a speech, and Hillary would give a favorable recommendation.  This has resulted in our technology being given to the Russians, and uranium as well.  Many people have become rich as a result, including the Clintons.  Their foundation is a front also for making themselves rich.  The collected money for Haiti, and upwards of 90 percent of the money has gone to administration costs.  With Hillary Clinton we have a known commodity; someone who will sell out the American people; someone who is racked by scandal after scandal.  

Of special note is the portrayal Ida B. Wells.  I was not familiar with her story.  It seems it is lost in history because she was a Black woman who was  also Republican.  She was a reporter, and not afraid to speak her mind in her paper.  She often opposed lynching, but was put down by the local Democrats who controlled the police.  She advocated for Black second amendment rights which were taken away by Jim Crow laws and Black Codes.  On the website for the movie it states, "She denounced the Democratic Party because they treated blacks like chattel, not as human beings with equal rights to whites."

D'Souza also presents the Democratic Party as a gang of cons who are playing the biggest con with the stakes being our country.  They support the poor, for their votes, with the promise of using money through taxes so they can give to so many and get their votes.  However as in any con, you offer something up front, and take more later.  The take our freedom with their taxation policies.  (not part of the movie, but I hear Hillary Clinton is now planning to increase taxes on the middle class.)  Both Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton came up through the study of Saul Alinsky, who bragged of his ability to con and taught others this same practice.

D'Souza uses actors in many prominent roles to tell his story.  Of course the attitude of the actors is reflecting an agenda rather than what really may have taken place.  But his point is made.  Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party was a slave holder, who had sex with his slaves, who was opposed by Davy Crocket in his Indian Removal Act (Andrew Jackson needed the land to give to people who would then back him politically) but never the less, caused the forced migration of hundreds of Native Americans, many of whom passed away enroute.  The Republican party claim as their first President Abraham Lincoln.  The Civil War in many  respects was a war between Democrats and Republicans.  Democrats wanted to keep slavery in place.  D' Souza makes the statements that no republicans ever had slaves.

Democrats just seem to have been wrong for America through history, and in my opinion, they are still wrong.  

Documentary Review: Slave Catchers and Slave Resisters

This is a presentation from The History Channel which gives a history of the means used by slave honors to keep their "property" and maintain the institution of slavery.  It points out that the reason for slavery is that it made some man very wealth even though their was the immorality of it, and even though their were slave escapes, and always the fear of slave uprising.  There was some reason for white people to be weary of this possibility.  The Stono rebellion of a group of slaves trying to make it to Florida and freedom (as offered by the Spanish who were at war with England) resulted in the execution of white people.  The revolt started with 20 men but swelled to about 100.  They were led by Jemmy.  Eventually the militia was called out and the revolt was crushed, many Blacks being killed, some gaining freedom and other executed.
Over time, the tactics used to recapture slaves changed, but finally landed on the slave catchers to pursue and bring back runaways.  All whites could be pushed into being slave catchers, but those most successful were those who did it professionally for the chance of reward. 
This movie also talks about the revolt of Nat Turner, and those who followed him.  Turner was a preacher and felt he had been called to avenge the slaves.  His was a very bloody rebellion.  They killed any white people they saw.  Eventually the rebellion was crushed, but Turner was at large for some time.  During this time of heightened alarm, many black people were executed as being complicit, or just because.  In this case the federal government and local militia were both called in.  Slavery was codified in our constitution, and the South had a great deal of political power. 
The fugitive slave act of 1850 in essence made every citizen a slave catcher.  This did not set well with abolitionist.  Although it did work to have slaves returned, it also galvanized the country.  This contributed to the final test with regards to slavery, that of the Civil War.
The Civil War was not the final say on race relations.  After the war the Klu Klux Klan sprang up which kept the struggle for white domination of blacks alive. 
Link on slave uprisings
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/did-african-american-slaves-rebel/
This movie has its strengths.  I generally do not like historical reenactment as a documentary method.  However in this case it is well done and appropriate to the story.  There is also sufficient interviews and other information to make it OK.