Lincoln was a conservative and elected to the presidency as a Republican. The Republican party was determined to end slavery in the USA. Nearly all the Northern political offices were held by Republicans or conservatives. Contrast this to the Southern states where the opposite was true in that virtually all the political offices were held by Democrats. Prior to Lincoln even being elected the Democrats (you're taught in school the South but this is a LIE) threatened to succeed from the union if he won. The Democrats new that with the House of Representatives and the White House being held by Republicans the end of the "southern way of life" would be close at hand.
Another lie you've been taught by public education and the chattering talking heads is that the South succeeded from the union primarily because of political and economic reasons. That the Civil War wasn't about slavery. This is a thin lie that can not stand against logic. What political and economic reasons caused the South to succeed? The political reasons were that the Republicans/Conservatives were going to continue to pass legislation restricting slavery, continue to push for the ending of slavery, and block newly created states from becoming slave states. This leads into the economic reasons. Economically the southern slave owners would be devastated if they had to pay the people that were currently working for free. This is a reality that can not be denied. The succession of the South and the Civil War were specifically and undeniably driven by the desire of the Right/Republicans/Conservatives to end slavery and the desire of the Left/Democrats/Liberals to protect slavery.
At the end of the Civil War slavery was ended and Reconstruction was begun. While I will admit that during Reconstruction had some questionable constitutional aspects (denial of voting rights and denying political offices to specific people that had been in key leadership positions of the Confederacy for example). However, in general it promoted equality and worked to protect freed blacks in the South. During Reconstruction the Republicans ran the South and forced through the US Congress the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution. These amendments ended slavery, guaranteed citizenship rights to people born on US soil (meaning slaves born in the US as well as their children were now citizens and entitled to equal rights), and guaranteed your right to vote couldn't be restricted by race, color or previous condition to servitude. This is the legacy of the Republican party. This is what Democrats fought against.
Eventually, the ex-slave owners got back into positions of political power in the South. One specific tool they used was the threat that the south would rise again. The Democrats threatened a new civil war after the presidential election of 1876. The Republican candidate, Rutherford B. Hayes, had won by 1 electoral vote while the Democrat candidate, Samuel J. Tilden had won the popular vote by about 250,000 votes. To his credit Samuel Tilden was an anti-slavery (and please note) conservative Democrat. An unwritten deal was struck between Democrats and Republicans called the Compromise of 1876 in which the Democrats would withdraw their contest of the election allowing Hayes to take office if the Republicans would remove the Union Army troops from all former Confederate states, appoint at least 1 southern Democrat to Hayes' cabinet, construct an new transcontinental railroad, and create legislation to industrialize the south. The results of this compromise destroyed the progress the Republicans had made in the areas of equal rights in the southern states. Under Reconstruction, blacks held political offices, ran business, voted, and found some protection in an otherwise hostile environment.
During Reconstruction, paramilitary terrorist organizations that had political ties to the Democratic party engaged in voter intimidation, assignations, and massacres all with the goal of reducing Republican votes in an effort to get Democrats elected to office. I'm willing to bet you've never heard about this portion of our American history. Have you ever heard of the "White League", "Redeemers" or the "Redshirts"? In 1868 over several days in Louisiana, these paramilitary, groups killed 200 freedmen in St. Landry parish. From April to October of that same year these groups carried out 1081 political assignations most of which were freedmen. Do you know about the Colfax massacre? A white militia, and a military arm of the Democrat party, slaughter 150 black republicans who'd taken up the defense of the court house in Colfax, Louisiana for fear of the Democrat militia throwing out the Republican judges? Most of the blacks were killed AFTER they had surrendered to the white DEMOCRAT militia. Some were even killed a day after the last shots were fired as prisoners. Did you know that the KKK was organized by Democrats? Do you know what the Knights of the White Camelia were? Do you know about the Coushatta massacre? The White League, a paramilitary organization made up of white southern DEMOCRATS, gathered up 6 white Republican office holders in Louisiana and 20 freedmen and made them sign a document stating they withdrew from their offices and would immediately leave the state. Before they were allowed to leave though they were assassinated by these white southern DEMOCRATS. How about the White Leagues insurrection of New Orleans? The White League attempted to throw out of office the Republican Governor and almost had if not for the arrival of Federal troops. Thousands were killed during the White Leagues insurrection of New Orleans.
Enough of that though, after all these are events that took place almost 150 years ago. The Democrat Party of today is leading the charge for equality. Right? I mean, the first black President comes from the Democrat party so they must be reformed. Well, be that as it may, as recently as 50 years ago the Democrats were fighting the Republicans again over equal rights. It was Republican President, Eisenhower, that ended segregation in the military, assigned anti-segregationist judges (opening the way for lawsuits to be brought against segregation), summoned the National Guard troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the black students that were FINALLY allowed to attend a "white" school. It was Eisenhower that proposed and championed the first civil rights bills in decades. A black man, for the first time ever, held a cabinet position in Eisenhower's administration. What were the Democrats doing you ask? Ah well, Southern Democrats filibustered these civil right bills. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson appointed PRO-segregationist judges to the benches. Yes Johnson and Kennedy might have spoken in grand speeches about equality, they may have signed bills, and I'm not questioning their convictions towards promoting equality. I'm merely stating facts that they put segregationists in judgeship's. A significant portion of the Democratic Party was actively opposed to ending segregation. Democrats like Senator Robert Byrd, currently the senior Senator of WV and once was a leader of a chapter of the KKK in WV, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the only two blacks to be nominated to the the US Supreme Court. He even went so far as to order J. Edgar Hoover to use the FBI to investigate (harass) one of these nominees, Thurgood Marshall, because Byrd believed he was either a communist or had a potential communist past. On top of all of this now today Byrd sits on the Senate subcommittee for Housing and Urban Development and has received a 100 percent rating from the NAACP (I'll get to this corrupt organization later) and best of all is THIRD in line to become President if Obama, Biden, and Pellossi die. Byrd is "HONESTLY" sorry for his mistakes in his past and hopes to redeem (where have we heard that term before I wonder?) himself. Why only just 8 years ago during an interview with Tony Snow on Fox News he said:
"They're much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime... I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
Look at how reformed he is. Racism is a thing of the past. Of course it is. Sure. He's not racist because he used the N-word in combination with the word white. So of course he's not racist.
Then there is Democrat J. William Fulbright. Another segregationist. You might have heard of a Fulbright scholar? These are students that receive financial assistance to study abroad. They are the cream of the crop. Bill Clinton always spoke highly of Senator Fulbright, even called him his mentor and friend. This was a "gentleman" who filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helped create "The Southern Manifesto", was a a segregationist, an anti-Semite and was always very vocal regarding his attitudes about blacks.
Now lets discuss fascism. This is a label that those on the left gleefully place on those of the right. Why? The only explanation I can come up with is because they are either ignorant or the left has done a very good job with once again distorting history. Now, we all know that evil will use whatever tool is at it's disposal to commit horrible acts. One example of that in the 20th century was the rise of fascism. Fascism in Italy under Mussolini, in Germany under Hitler, in Spain under Franco, and in Japan under Hirohito, have all been put in the RIGHT WING category. Yet if one scratches the surface of these "right wing dictators" we find something shocking evidence that they had an awful lot in common with the left. In fact, I purpose that all dictatorships are truly examples of the rule from the left rather than the right. We all understand the basics of the left vs. the right when it come to economics, right? Well, to put it very simply, the left is in favor of nationalizing industry while the right is in favor of privatizing industry. So now considering that lets look at dictatorships. Do they privatize or nationalize industry? Hmmmm......I challenge any of you reading this to provide examples where government and industry are separate entities in a country run by a dictatorship. It doesn't exist. Modern examples would be Chavez taking control of the oil industry. Socialists and Communist swear by the nationalization of all or most industry. I think it's safe to say that at least from an economic point dictators and those on the left have common goals. Now lets look at some of the more famous fascists. Did you know that prior to creating and running the Italian Fascist party Mussolini was a Socialist? He broke with the Socialists only after they in his opinion were not bold enough to take the steps needed to liberate Italy from the current elite. Would it shock you to know that Mussolini, prior to creating the Fascists, was the editor of a large Socialist newspaper called the Avanti! and that he was well known by the police as an anarchist agitator? He was even an anti-war activist protesting against the "imperialist war in Lybia". During Mussolini's rule he made grand speeches about eliminating classes all the while living like a king. He created and organized huge social efforts. Then we look at Hitler. Hitler also was a Socialist. He was the head of the Nazi party which is only the common name for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Yes he was an anti-Semite. Yes he was a dictator. And yes he was from the LEFT not the RIGHT. Essentially what we see developing here is that Fascism is a form of Nationalize Socialism but it IS Socialism (from the LEFT). So I would say that Socialist, Fascist and DEMOCRATS have far more in common than do Republicans.
Now I'm not trying to suggest in this long post that the Democrat party is on par with the likes of Stalin (Communist, Left) who sent over 20 million people to death camps, or Hitler, or Mussolini. Nor am I suggesting that Democrats have a monopoly on racism or bigotry. What I would like to point out though is that the Republican party and Conservatism has a long history of promoting equality. That Republicans and Conservatives ended slavery. That we have little in common with the epitaphs that those on the left think fit us. Yet, after all the truth matters little when the likes of Janeane Garofalo (ultra-lefty and radio show host on the left radio channel Air America) are given air time to spew lies as she did recently on the Countdown show on MSNBC. She said:
"...Michael Steele, who’s the black guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favor with the oppressor."
Ah yes, I see her logic now, the party that fought a war to free slaves is the oppressor of Mr. Steel. OK, I think I understand it all now, thanks for the history lesson Janeane. She is either ignorant or just stupid. Why does she have a radio show? Why is she invited onto TV? There must be someone above her that KNOWS she's lying and yet lets it go on. The true tragedy of this is that when you allow these types of lies to go on eventually they become the "KNOWN TRUTH" rather than the lies they are. How about the NAACP Chairman Julian Bond stating:
"The Republican Party would have the American flag and the swastika flying side by side."He also called Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell "tokens" and said that the judges which Bush had appointed were little better than the Taliban in Afghanistan. How does the NAACP still have it's not for profit status with clearly politically diverse speeches such as this one? Not to mention that here we have an organization that by it's very name is suppose to be for the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE (large print because that's partially what the acronym stands for) has a Chairman that for some unknown reason (probably to peddle influence) has decided that it is best to tear down the party that has struggled for the liberation and equality of his race from it's very beginning.
I am thoroughly confused. When did it become socially acceptable to whitewash the Democrat Party's past in slavery, bigotry, Communism, Socialism (therefore closely linked to Fascism) and pin it all on the party that has fought against all of this? I think it's high time the pendulum began it's swing the other way. This period of lies must come to an end. I am not pretending that the Republican Party is saintly. But lets give credit where credit is due. The biggest concern I have with all these lies can best be summed up by this blogs namesake:
"...a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." from Common Sense by Thomas Paine
In our case this quote can be applied in the following sense: if a lie is left alone and undisputed it will with time replace the truth. What say you?
No comments:
Post a Comment