Democrat Nightmare Come True

Tuesday, June 18, AD 2013

In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone, — your interference is doing him positive injury.

January 26, 1865-Frederick Douglass, abolitionist and Republican

 

 

State Senator Elbert Lee Guillory (R.La) is at the cutting edge of a trend that is beginning in the South of black elected officials switching to the Republican party.  His statement of why he has become the first Black Republican Senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction is quite eloquent:

 

Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I’m the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a ‘bold decision’ to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also to explain why I don’t think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision — not only for me — but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.

You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for black people. Somehow it’s been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.

Frederick Douglass called Republicans the ‘Party of freedom and progress,’ and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.

The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.

You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing — control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control black the black community.

Continue reading...

52 Responses to Democrat Nightmare Come True

  • This is great news! Maybe the black folks are finally seeing the light and understand that the democrats are destroying them. We will need each other if we are to restore our country.

  • There is a long, long way to go. Organizations like the NAACP and the Urban League are extensions of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party, the most egregious Organized Crime organization in the world, will not willingly let go of their low information voters.

  • That’s inspiring.

  • ” ‘So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, ‘free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.’

    The newly minted Republican is a firm pro-lifer and a Roman Catholic. He is a grand addition to the party of Lincoln.”

    Good to hear – at this time when the one at the g-8 from here is bringing the news that the parochial schools are just such a divisive influence on the establishment of his dem agenda. Gracious. So busy wreaking disorder and confusion that people and the yet to be born, given they will be, may notice.

    During a recent campaign visit for E. Markey to replace J. Kerry, a tv commercial was produced; and now , until the 25th, there is the sound of his loud pleas about the Senate and President needing him there. Gabriel Gomez, a former Navy Seal, must be too orderly of an American. (Pray that electronics won’t be garbage in, garbage out again.)

  • Halleluia! Omne laus Deo! Est spes!

  • This is good news. This dude appears to be very intelligent. I’m glad he made this decision, but I cannot help but wonder what took him so long to figure this out. These things I knew since I was a young lad suddenly come as revelation to far smarter people late in their life? Perhaps I should just be happy about this and not look a gift horse in the mouth.

  • The good senator is in for a lot of abuse from the Democrats, both white and black. From the black Dems who think they owe their eternal allegiance to the Democratic Party, and by white Dems who think all blacks belong on their plantation, and those, like Senator Guillory, and Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Allan West and others (and formerly Colin Powell) who stray are to be dealt with unmercifully. Black Republicans are perhaps the most despised minority group in America, and among the bravest Americans. Good luck, Senator Guillory!

  • Quite right Joseph, but most great movements start with a few courageous men and women speaking the truth and a accepting the consequences. In the Jewish Talmud it is written that God did not part the Red Sea during the Exodus until one of the Jewish standard bearers had the faith and courage to leap into the Red Sea.

  • Good Morning,

    The delivery is really rather extraordinary. It is spoken simply and directly. A few unassailable facts, an inspiring quote, a direct, specific point and the audience is engaged. The speaker comes off as honest and respectable.

    The public is tuning out to messages of all kinds. Assailed by a constant wave of media, we aren’t hearing very clearly anymore. It often feels like politicians are speaking to one another and not to us. Their messages are convaluted and sidestep deeper questions in a way that gives the appearance of duplicity.

    The GOP needs to simplify its messages, speaking to each issue directly and keeping on track. We don’t just need people who hold our core values, we need to listen to them.

  • Sen. Guillory is indeed a brave man. Let us hope and pray that he can put some backbone in the Republican Party. It has a grave need of some.

  • Maybe this guy can show the gutless GOP leadership what a real man looks like.

  • I know of no member of the Democratic Party who has lost a good night’s sleep over this. If the Repubicans are retreating from their “Southern Strategy” of the 1970s, I welcome it.

  • What Southern strategy would that be Kurt? Not the discredited Democrat myth that the racists who were the core voters for the Democrat party since Reconstruction in the South suddenly switched en masse to the Republican party? That Leftist fable is as on target as MSNBC’s recent flub in calling the late George Wallace a Republican.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0

    Republicans began to gain votes in the South in the fifties largely as a result of air conditioning, Eisenhower and an influx of northern Republicans into rapidly economically developing areas of the South. It was Southern Democrats like George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor, Orville Faubus, who nailed their political fortunes to a doomed fight to preserve the Jim Crow status quo in the South. The South became Republican gradually, and largely thanks to the national Democrat party embracing cultural causes like abortion uber alles and being anti-military.

  • From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

    — Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips (1970)

    Of course, before Roe v. Wade, the Democrats lost the deep South in 1964, lost every southern state except Texas in 1968 and lost the entire South to Nixon in 1972. In the first post-Roe election (1976), they actually did better than with Nixon.

  • Goldwater in 1964 largely carried the same Southern states that Ike, the most pro-civil rights President since Grant, carried in 52 and 56. Nixon in 1968 carried Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Florida, while losing the South to Wallace, with the Democrats in the South in disarray except in Texas where the remnants of the Johnson machine held the state for Humphrey. In 1972 the Democrats lost the entire nation except for Massachusetts. The Peanut Farmer was a former governor of Georgia and in 1976 straddled the fence on abortion. Betty Ford was outspokenly pro-abortion and effectively undercut Gerald Ford’s very half-hearted opposition to abortion.

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/161884/betty-ford-feminist-social-liberal-republican#axzz2WlsdwM4x

  • Kurt, Kevin Phillips’ words do not mean that the GOP took the South by becoming racists. In fact, Phillips’ strategy, such as it is, failed.

    Louisiana and Arkansas are not controlled by Republican machines. Florida is no southern state in a political sense. Virginia has been infected with Potomac Fever.
    West Virginia still votes Democrat for almost everything bu the Presidency.

  • I think I can safely claim that I am the highest ranking officer of the Democratic Party (our legal name) that comments here, therefore I’ll take on the duty of speaking for the Party.

    Whatever electoral advantage it brings the Democratic Party, it is unhealthy for the nation to have a GOP that is close to a whites only party. Rather than having nightmares that the Republicans will find some success in moving towards racial diversity in their party, I sincerely hope they are successful, even while understanding it does not politically benefit my party.

    The RNC commissioned a report on this problem and the Young Republicans have also initiated some research. I wish them well in implementing successful programs that will result in recruiting some meaningful support from the African American, Hispanic and Asian Americans communities.

    The status quo of non-whites being almost absent from one of the two major parties in this country is simply not good for America.

    Again, no nightmares on my part because of a single state senator switching parties.

  • Ah but it isn’t merely one state senator switching Kurt, but rather a trend that is beginning throughout the South. The Democrat party relies upon lockstep voting by blacks and if that changes the party of abortion goes the way of the passenger pigeon. Considering that blacks have fared the worst of any group under Obama, except for unborn children, you may well live to see the days of monolithic black voting for your party to be one with the solid Democrat South or rock-ribbed Republican New England. Politics is always in flux and no element of the population can stand aside forever from that flux.

  • The unpatriotic aspects of the foundation of the democratic party are beginning to fail, crack, and dissolve. Watch how desperate they in the democratic party become over the next two years. The mid-term elections will be devastating to their elected ranks. The next presidential election in 2016 will be the end of this phase of the democratic party.

  • I may well live to see that day where the GOP is able to reach out beyond white voters. I hope I do, not because of an expectation that it means I will have longevity, but because I truly think the present situation of one of our major parties being so racially monolithic is bad for the nation. I encourage those of you who are Republicans to work effectively towards that noble goal. I wish you success.

    My state Republican central committee recently hired the first African American state Executive Director in the history of the Republican Party (and also the first openly gay ED). Maybe that is a hopeful sign. With Sen. Guillroy’s switch, now five southern states have at least a single Black Republican in either chamber of their state legislature.

  • The Democratic Party enslaved the black man to the plantation in the 19th century. Today the Democratic Party enslaves the black man to the teat of the public treasury while it murders unborn babies (a disproportionate number of whom are black) and sanctifies the filth of sodomy. Guess which party Kurt loves?

    The Republican Party isn’t the party of God, but we know who controls the Democratic Party. I do NOT say that all Democrats are bad, but inherent in the word democracy is the idea that majority rules regardless of moral law, for democracy in its purest and truest form is nothing other than two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Republicanism, however, in its truest form is respect for law and moral order, sadly virtues which the Democratic Party eschews and for which the Republican Party has demonstrated too much apathy and lethargy. But if limited to the choice of just those two, I’ll take the Republican Party any day of the week.

    PS, I am sick and tired of this racist nonsense that the Republican Party is the party of the white man. First of all, what’s wrong with being white? And secondly, if Kurt is so color blind, then why is this such a fixation for him and his like?

  • Paul —

    Given all of that, you would think the GOP would do better than the miserable job they are currently doing in winning minority support. Do you think the plan is continued repetition of what you just wrote? Or are there any serious ideas about doing something else?

  • Valid point, Kurt. Thankfully, we are not limited to just two parties. I will vote for the Constitution Party candidate henceforward unless something miraculous happens. Here is its 2012 platform:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/2012Platform/tabid/127/Default.aspx

    Personally, unlike Don (may God bless his heart), I am a pessimist and think we have gone too far down the road of perdition in our embrace of the filth of sodomy and the bloody murder of the unborn. What God allowed Sennecharib to do to Israel and Nebuchadnezzar to Judah He will allow to happen to us. He deals with apostasy, heresy and rebellion first with a time for repentance and conversion, and when that fails, with swift and terrible justice. Lord have mercy.

    So I will vote my conscience instead of choosing between the lesser of two evils. May the good Lord forgive me if I err, and enable me to do right.

  • Paul,

    I have every confidence the Lord would quickly forgive you if you erred on these matters and find your sense of conscience admirable even if my conscience leads me elsewhere.

  • again this Jim Crow Democrat narrative is a total fallacy and the conservatives who buy into it are being completely intellectually dishonest

    those notorious Jim Crow Democrats Hubert Humphrey, JFK and LBJ

  • Rubbish JDP, as I am sure those Democrats Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Orville Faubus, et al would readily agree. Your attempt to deny history is ridiculous and fatuous. Democrats have always been ready to use race-baiting as part of their election strategies. Only the colors have shifted, not the underlying principle that government may treat Americans differently on the basis of race.

  • give me a damn break. Even if Jim Crow and affirmative action are both wrong you’re really gonna try and tell me the intentions behind ’em are the same?

    does Barack Obama see himself as a Democrat in the lineage of the guys you listed or the guys I listed? Do you acknowledge that there was a split in the Democratic coalition during the ’60s that partially involved racial issues? Do Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms make the entire Republican Party anti-black in the way you’re trying to pretend that mid-century Southern Democratic governors represent the entire Democratic Party of the time?

  • The Democrat Party JDP has always viewed race as a factor to use to win elections and appeals to raw racism and racial paranoia are absolutely a part of the current Democrat strategy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIOXfqvBEaE
    http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2013/06/politics_maybe.php

    That you continually seek to deny a self-evident reality does not alter the reality.

  • give me a damn break. Even if Jim Crow and affirmative action are both wrong you’re really gonna try and tell me the intentions behind ‘em are the same?

    To be precise, one regulates public space as a component of caste regulations. The other is a manifestation of the impulse of a certain sort of bourgeois to manufacture patron-client relationships. Both are disagreeable and have (with some qualifications) found their home in the Democratic Party throughout the post-bellum period.

    does Barack Obama see himself as a Democrat in the lineage of the guys you listed or the guys I listed?

    It does not matter how he sees himself. By default, he is a vehicle of the social services and educational apparat. He does not think outside that box.

    Do you acknowledge that there was a split in the Democratic coalition during the ’60s that partially involved racial issues?

    So?

    Do Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms make the entire Republican Party anti-black in the way you’re trying to pretend that mid-century Southern Democratic governors represent the entire Democratic Party of the time?

    Franklin Roosevelt received 13% of his vote totals from states where negro disfranchisement and segregation were fairly generalized (Thomas Dewey received 5% of his smaller vote totals from those states). There were only a scatter of Republican elected officials in any of those states at that time, and nearly all Southern Republican members of Congress were from a few Appalachian districts or from the very periphery of the South (Tulsa, Louisville). By contrast, you have two lapsed Democrats, one of whom was not a federal elected official at any time when racial caste regulations were a live issue. I am not seeing the ‘taint’ as being nearly of the same dimensions.

  • Art Deco I am not saying that you can’t point out past Democratic tolerance of the Southern wing as a key part of their history (though I am not sure what it has to do with now.) I am saying that this constant “Party of Lincoln, Party of George Wallace” drumbeat from Mr. McClarey when it comes to the Democrats and race is partisan hackery, which it is. You can’t take a party that used to include people on opposite sides of black civil rights, then went fully to the pro side, and define it entirely by the anti side it used to include. It doesn’t work and it rightfully doesn’t convince anyone (see: Rand Paul at Howard)

    and while Jim Crow and affirmative action might be equally “disagreeable” in the broad detached terms you’re speaking in it’s a real stretch to directly compare them. especially considering one was designed as an attempt to remedy the ill effects of the other and attitudes like it.

  • “Mr. McClarey when it comes to the Democrats and race is partisan hackery”

    Ludicrous. You sail completely by the use of the contemporary Democrat party of racial paranoia and racism to gain votes after I gave you an example from the lips of the Veep of the nation last year. I could have given you hundreds of other examples just from last year. Your stance on this matter is not merely intellectually dishonest but as foolish as Joe Biden and that is immense foolishness indeed.

  • You can’t take a party that used to include people on opposite sides of black civil rights, then went fully to the pro side, and define it entirely by the anti side it used to include. It doesn’t work and it rightfully doesn’t convince anyone (see: Rand Paul at Howard)

    and while Jim Crow and affirmative action might be equally “disagreeable” in the broad detached terms you’re speaking in it’s a real stretch to directly compare them. especially considering one was designed as an attempt to remedy the ill effects of the other and attitudes like it.

    Mr. JDP, I do not know where you live, but in the real fleshly country in which I live, “black civil rights” (in both the true sense of that term and the conventional sense of that term) have not been a subject of much controversy since about 1971. Within the Republican Party, there were some differences of opinion about specific policy measures but scarcely any defenses of Southern caste regulations.

    The ‘pro’ side to which you refer is not concerned with anyone’s civil rights or anything conventionally appended to the notion of civil rights in the two decades after the war. It is concerned with various sorts of political patronage and institutional arrangements. It is also concerned with political mobilization around identity categories.

    It is most foolish to speak of the excuses and lawyer’s briefs people offer at face value. There is a list of issues with regard to which liberal discourse extends very little beyond the boundaries of the republic of humbug. This is one such issue.

    John Rawls used the term ‘system of natural liberty’ to describe a state of equal liberty in which careers were open to talents. I doubt in this country you will get the bulk of the general public to adjudge as fair any system of social relations that is not a riff on that. Sad to say, elite cartels frustrating both the interests and sentiments of the broader public describes a great deal of how business is done in our world today. If you want something else, there is only one conduit toward that end. (Hint: it does not involve hitting the toggle switches next to the candidates marked ‘D’).

  • ‘ but in the real fleshly country in which I live, “black civil rights” (in both the true sense of that term and the conventional sense of that term) have not been a subject of much controversy since about 1971 – ‘

    Thank you. So well said, and applicable to this neck of the woods also. And, again, as follows:

    ‘ The ‘pro’ side to which you refer is not concerned with anyone’s civil rights – …
    It is concerned with various sorts of political patronage and institutional arrangements. It is also concerned with political mobilization around identity categories. ‘

    The party in power knows how to use people, most of us being inarticulate in the face of personal psychological ‘attacks’, to impose diversion and weakness in order to slither on.

  • “Mr. JDP, I do not know where you live, but in the real fleshly country in which I live, “black civil rights” (in both the true sense of that term and the conventional sense of that term) have not been a subject of much controversy since about 1971”

    I’m not the “historian” continually bringing up past Southern Democratic policies as though it’s at all relevant to today and acting like those guys were somehow flaming liberals

    Mr. McClarey — sorry I don’t reach for the smelling salts over certain charged election hyperbole, or think that Biden comment is really on the level of this Jim Crow narrative you’re constantly trying to wrap all Democrats in. but you can keep making your case why the Democratic Party is the most racisting racist party in the history of racism and that black people have just been mindtricked into voting for ’em if it makes you comfortable I guess.

  • “Mr. McClarey — sorry I don’t reach for the smelling salts over certain charged election hyperbole, or think that Biden comment is really on the level of this Jim Crow narrative you’re constantly trying to wrap all Democrats in. but you can keep making your case why the Democratic Party is the most racisting racist party in the history of racism and that black people have just been mindtricked into voting for ‘em if it makes you comfortable I guess.”

    Having a major political party in this nation JDP that routinely makes political hay by use of racial hatred and racial paranoia, and has done so for over one hundred and fifty years, makes me very uncomfortable. If it doesn’t make you uncomfortable I feel very sorry for you.

  • Biden hyperbole, populist conservative Democrats who were alienated from their party a long time ago: all part of the same tradition.

    like I said, hack. This is the conservative version of liberals arguing that because Republicans won over the South after 1964 their coalition is irredeemably racist. They’re simplified distorted versions of history used so hyperpartisans feel good about themselves

  • “They’re simplified distorted versions of history used so hyperpartisans feel good about themselves”

    No, it is simply an accurate description of Democrat tactics to profit from racial hatred. That you seek to deny this speaks volumes about your lack of insight and/or bad faith.

  • “He is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street. He is going to put y’all back in chains.”

    sorry I don’t reach for the smelling salts over certain charged election hyperbole

    ‘Hyperbole’ is an odd way to put it. If it were anyone else, one would think this is an effort to move the frontier of what can be uttered in the public square. The lack of an internal editor in Biden’s head leaves one with the impression that the vice president’s lack of rhetorical skill (after 43 years in electoral politics) stands at the root of this, certainly none of that foreign phenomena others call “thought”. And how did we get a blathering azz-clown as the 1st in line to succeed to the presidency? Another ace decision by B.O…..

  • Still, Biden at his best was the day he confused himself with Neil Kinnock.

  • look guys, if you think the Biden thing is that awful that’s your prerogative, that’s not my issue here. My issue is Mr. McClarey continually taking the right wing (how it was referred to at the time — think Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace representing the right and left wings respectively in the ’48 election) of the Democratic Party as existed in the past and using it as a partisan point-scoring tool. It is lame and intellectually dishonest, and echoes tonedeaf conservative rhetoric that condescendingly acts as though the black vote for Obama/other Democratic politicians because of some elaborate mindtrick. Now if you want to argue that Democrats raise the specter of nefarious Republicans conspiring against racial minorities as electoral rhetoric that’s one thing (although if Republicans wanna push through voter ID rules they should effectively defend themselves and not act scandalized by criticism — of course people’re gonna bring up the racial angle,) just don’t be surprised if people aren’t impressed by attempts at Jim Crow analogies.

  • “My issue is Mr. McClarey continually taking the right wing (how it was referred to at the time — think Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace representing the right and left wings respectively in the ’48 election) of the Democratic Party as existed in the past and using it as a partisan point-scoring tool.”

    You simply refuse to acknowledge the actual point that I am making JDP which is the consistent theme of the Democrat party in using government power to discriminate among Americans based on race and the reliance of the Democrats on blatant racial appeals as a result of this policy. Trying to contend that Southern Democrat segregationists were “right” is amusing. Most of them were completely mainstream in their allegiance to the New Deal. Indeed, some of them, Huey Long for example, were to the left of FDR on economic matters. Strom Thurmond, who you cite, was an ardent New Dealer as Governor of South Carolina. The segregationists as a group were fairly typical Democrats, and in their use of racial appeals for political purposes they were part of a long and dishonorable Democrat tradition that continues to this day.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-democratic-strategy-keep-playing-the-race-card/article/610841

  • think Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace representing the right and left wings respectively in the ’48 election) of the Democratic Party as existed in the past and using it as a partisan point-scoring tool. It is lame and intellectually dishonest,

    1. I am pleased to here you do not like ‘partisan point-scoring’. That being the case, I will assume you just cannot abide the humbug peddled (by, among others, Paul Krugman) about Richard Nixon having built a Republican Party from race baiting. (Samples of his advertising here: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968)

    and echoes tonedeaf conservative rhetoric that condescendingly acts as though the black vote for Obama/other Democratic politicians because of some elaborate mindtrick.

    Thomas Frank flacks for the other team, JDP (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372029336&sr=1-1&keywords=whats+the+matter+with+kansas)

    That aside, there is such a thing as casting a ballot as a way of affirming an affiliation. You can talk to pols in Ulster if you want a precis of how that works in a multi-party system. You can look at the Bronx for an example of what happens in a two party system (or “two” party system).

    Now if you want to argue that Democrats raise the specter of nefarious Republicans conspiring against racial minorities as electoral rhetoric that’s one thing (although if Republicans wanna push through voter ID rules they should effectively defend themselves and not act scandalized by criticism — of course people’re gonna bring up the racial angle,) just don’t be surprised if people aren’t impressed by attempts at Jim Crow analogies.

    The law says when you cast a ballot, you show a picture ID first, as you do for the most banal transactions. And its your contention that there is a segment of the adult population too disengaged to have a picture ID but part of the 40% or so that are civically inclined enough to cast a ballot. Yeah, and Soupy Sales made $80,000 from this maneuver.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OGy3Kh7yM&list=PLB468BE316B343514

    And, its only natural that Democratic pols would respond to these legislative efforts with a blizzard of slander. Thank God they aren’t lame and intellecutally dishonest.

  • “Trying to contend that Southern Democrat segregationists were “right” is amusing”

    the concept of racial conservatism/liberalism never existed? There are other forms of rightism besides Catholic conservatism. And again with this New Deal stuff — I’m not saying you can neatly lump these guys into a conservative across-the-board category. I’m saying that they were viewed as right-wing in certain ways and were never thought of as the liberal wing. Which they weren’t. You didn’t have to be a flaming pinko to support New Deal programs.

    Art Deco I know this psychoanalysis of Republican voters from guys like Krugman is very popular with liberals and I reject it. “Southern strategy won all modern Republican presidential victories” and “the modern Democratic Party is descended from Bull Connor” are flipsides of the same partisan coin, unless you view race in a completely abstract way where affirmative action and Jim Crow are the same thing, which still doesn’t change the fact that one is literally the _opposite_ of the other and intended as a corrective whether it’s wrong or not. you are right about bloc voting (with Obama could compare it to people voting for Kennedy out of Catholic pride, pretty natural) but absolving the GOP of any responsibility for why they don’t get the black vote, and treating ’em all as people’ve who’ve been duped, is pretty convenient.

  • I mean you guys are trying to take this more colorblind-than-thou stance and totally ignore the divergent histories of white and black people in this country so you can make white supremacy/having a more minority-based coalition into the same thing. do you really not get why people won’t accept this logic, regardless of their opinions on affirmative action/race-baiting in politics

  • “I’m saying that they were viewed as right-wing in certain ways and were never thought of as the liberal wing.”

    Harry Truman routinely condemned Republicans as fascists, a term he never applied to his Democrat supporters in Dixie. The economic issues tended to be the defining left/right divide of the time period considered, with cultural issues virtually non-existent. Another dividing line was between those who understood the menace posed by Communism and those who did not. The civil rights issue that began dividing the Democrat party beginning in 1948, Republicans having overwhelmingly supported civil rights for blacks, was not understood as a left/right issue within the party but rather a north/south divide. The fact that Senator Estes Kefauver, an opponent of integration, could be Stevenson’s veep candidate in 1956, and Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, an outright segregationist, Stevenson’s veep in 1952, demonstrates that this divide looms larger in retrospect than it did at the time, Sparkman and Kefauver otherwise being fairly standard liberals and therefore acceptable on a Democrat national ticket, their racism notwithstanding.

  • “Harry Truman routinely condemned Republicans as fascists, a term he never applied to his Democrat supporters in Dixie”

    more relevant, his support of military integration also provoked a breakaway Dixiecrat ticket. I dunno what point you’re trying to make here…politicians engage in heated political rhetoric?

    “The economic issues tended to be the defining left/right divide of the time period considered, with cultural issues virtually non-existent”

    This doesn’t change the fact that cultural issues are seen as having a left and right wing too, and that included racial issues. This doesn’t mean that conservatives couldn’t support black civil rights of course, just that the movement was not a “right-wing” one. National Review was critical of it and MLK, Barry Goldwater thought the Civil RIghts Act was unconstitutional, can go on. Of course it’s not like people are criticism-proof, but the point is that it was a liberal movement, even if it held support from non-liberals. Similar to how the pro-life movement is inherently a conservative one even if it attracts support from select liberals.

    “Another dividing line was between those who understood the menace posed by Communism and those who did not”

    so are you trying to say Truman was a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? Or both depending on the topic? If it’s the latter I don’t disagree

    “The civil rights issue that began dividing the Democrat party beginning in 1948, Republicans having overwhelmingly supported civil rights for blacks”

    it split the party, the Northern liberal wing won out, Southern states stopped voting lockstep for Democrats in presidential elections. AKA the exact point I’ve been making.

    I feel like you know this is dishonest as anything except simplifying history for partisan purposes. You know parties are not static entities. The only way bringing it up in today’s context is if you really wanna make the dubious case that affirmative action and certain election-year rhetoric are terrible awful no-good crimes on par with Jim Crow, which, good luck with that

  • “I dunno what point you’re trying to make here…politicians engage in heated political rhetoric?”

    Highlighting your ignorance of the left-right divisions of the time to underline your mischaracterization of segregationists as in any sense “right” which betrays a complete, probably deliberate, misstatement by you of just how mainstream they were as far as the Democrat party was concerned.

    “Of course it’s not like people are criticism-proof, but the point is that it was a liberal movement, even if it held support from non-liberals.”

    Republicans of all types had been calling for Civil Rights protection for blacks since the Civil War. Civil Rights was much more of a partisan issue between the Republicans and the Democrats than a left-right issue. The atrocious Civil Rights record of Woodrow Wilson, clearly a man of the left, demonstrates this. You really need to master the history in this area much better than you have, unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

    “so are you trying to say Truman was a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? Or both depending on the topic? If it’s the latter I don’t disagree”

    Truman in his time was considered a hard core New Deal liberal. He is now mistakenly considered to have conservative leanings by some purely due to the anti-anti-Communism that became dominant in the Democrat party in the late Sixties and Seventies. Truman looks conservative when compared to a George McGovern which says nothing about left-right splits in Truman’s day.

    “split the party, the Northern liberal wing won out, Southern states stopped voting lockstep for Democrats in presidential elections. AKA the exact point I’ve been making.”

    Which is a liberal fable. It didn’t happen that way. The first breach in the solid South was by Eisenhower who ran on a platform of vigorous support for Civil Rights for blacks. Segregationists retained complete control of the Democrat parties in the South and enjoyed electoral success throughout the period in question. The South changing to Republican had to do with the rise of the cultural issues, an influx of northern Republicans following wide spread use of air conditioning and the rapid economic development of the South, and the anti-military hysteria and isolationism that seized control of the Democrats in the wake of Vietnam. That you are peddling this myth illustrates either bad faith or a true ignorance of the subject.

    “I feel like you know this is dishonest as anything except simplifying history for partisan purposes.”
    No JDP, I spend my time correcting your bad history because bad history offends me. I also spend my time doing it because I had hoped you were simply ignorant rather than acting in bad faith. I am leaning to bad faith as your motivation now. I am placing you on moderation as a result.

  • Southern strategy won all modern Republican presidential victories” and “the modern Democratic Party is descended from Bull Connor” are flipsides of the same partisan coin, unless you view race in a completely abstract way where affirmative action and Jim Crow are the same thing, which still doesn’t change the fact that one is literally the _opposite_ of the other and intended as a corrective whether it’s wrong or not. you are right about bloc voting (with Obama could compare it to people voting for Kennedy out of Catholic pride, pretty natural)

    The blatherskite about the ‘Southern Strategy’ is a political fiction. It is propagated by people (Krugman, Thomas Sieger Derr) who do not have too many excuses – they lived through the period, they can certainly consult accounts of the inner-workings of Nixon’s ad campaigns (e.g. Joe McGinnis’ The Selling of the President, 1968, and video clips of Nixon ads are readily available. It is very pleasing nonsense for Democratic partisans and they are not going to give it up. Bull Connor actually was a registered Democrat and people who thought as he did were a big chunk of the Democratic Party’s base. No fiction there. (And this sort of social thought was not incidental to the dynamics of Southern politics).

    The notion that “Jim Crow” and “affirmative action” are “exactly the opposite of each other” is another political fiction – this time yours. “Affirmative action” has several dimensions, but among them are two: political mobilization making use of a revanchist strain in the culture of a population subset and the distribution of patronage to ethnic clientele. The former could be seen in post-bellum Southern politics and the latter in urban politics in the north after 1850. The perps in both cases were primarily the pols with the big “D” after their names. Plus ca change….

    but absolving the GOP of any responsibility for why they don’t get the black vote, and treating ‘em all as people’ve who’ve been duped, is pretty convenient.

    Ecologists have worked within a notion of ‘ecosystem succession’ which incorporates fairly rapid changes in the portfolio of flora and fauna to be found in a given area. You can see this in social life as well, for example in the characteristics of urban neighborhoods. With regard to the black political culture and society, you see two successions, one happening between about 1929 and 1934 and one running from 1956 to 1964. You can argue that the response of Republican politicians to what was going on around them was suboptimal, but keep in mind it was a response; there was not and is not much you can do to direct events in certain circumstances. I doubt you are going to see a graduated erosion of the Democratic Party’s position with the black populations; there will be a social crisis and then a flip to a new ecosystem, time and axes of conflict unknowable. Right now, blacks vote Democratic and Ulster protestants vote Unionist. This is not any ‘fault’ of the political opposition; it is just the society and culture in which we live.

    Votes are votes and no one vote counts more than any other, no matter how kew-el partisan Democrats fancy it is to have black votes and not vulgar evangelical votes.

  • so are you trying to say Truman was a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? Or both depending on the topic? If it’s the latter I don’t disagree

    The Democratic Party had what you might call a ‘popular front’ wing typified by Henry Wallace, Glen Taylor, and Robert Kenney. It imploded fairly rapidly between 1944 and 1950; salient events were the embarrassment of the Wallace campaign in 1948 and the expulsion of a dozen pinko unions from the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1949. The Republicans had an isolationist wing with two components: agrarian populists like William Langer and old whigs like Robert Taft. This was also rapidly imploding during the post-war period and were no more than about a quarter of the Congressional Republican caucus by 1949; Taft died in 1953 the residuum was ejected from Congress in the 1958 elections.

  • it split the party, the Northern liberal wing won out, Southern states stopped voting lockstep for Democrats in presidential elections. AKA the exact point I’ve been making.

    Um, no. The dissipation of the Democratic Party’s advantage in the Southern United States was a gradual one taking place over more than four decades. As late as 1976, Alabama had not one Republican in the lower house of its legislature.

Sanger: "We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population"

Tuesday, February 9, AD 2010

“We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population”

— Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. [1]

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Sanger: "We Want To Exterminate The Negro Population"

  • The fruit of liberalism, leftism and “Demokracy” which is but the other side of the coin whose head is “Socialism.”

  • I hate to complain, but if we’re going to win the argument on abortion, we need to be fastidious. The quote that you use as a title for this article is badly taken out of context. If you use that particular quote, you’re inviting an embarrassing refutation. Sanger said a lot of things that would offend modern people. Don’t use this one.

  • Yeah, not sure it’s a good idea to have a headline like on a blogpost. It could appear that American Catholic is saying that.

  • Interesting that EMILY’s List has an ad on this vid–are they hoping to cash in on backlash?

  • I have a different complaint. These sorts of arguments aren’t very convincing. Should we boycott Volkswagen because it began as a Nazi program? Convincing pro-choicers of their error requires addressing their concerns, not the concerns of their ancestors.

  • Gee, Volkswagen branched out from trying to kill Undesirables to trying to kill everyone?

    Dang, how did I miss that story?

  • As an American Catholic, the basis of my ‘anger’ with Planned Parenthood is that they receive Federal funding under false pretenses. They are the main US organization to procure and facilitate abortions, the US abortion-brokers, though stated reason for their existence is to provide family planning education.

    From a superficial viewpoint, founding of Planned Parenthood is not unlike the founding of Nazi party in Austria and Germany during the 1930s by a charismatic crackpot supported by those with nefarious and inhumane intent and purpose, that incidentally was detrimental to human society as a whole, and individually by outright killing of fellow humans in an effort to eliminate opposition to their supremacy.(

    The Planned Parenthood gang stoops to lies and distortions to gain political leverage and provide a political platform for one stated purpose while setting the stage for another purpose altogether, in part funded by our tax dollars. This ‘fact’ may be disputed, but I did receive 5-8 expensive colorful fliers in a State political election 3-4 years ago asking for support of their candidate because of unfair authority of ‘pharmacists making decisions about woman’s reproductive rights’ in filling certain type of prescriptions, which was indisputably wrong information.

    According to 2001 estimates, 76% Americans are Christian adherents (with 25% of US population Catholics). This ‘fact’ is barely disputable, with data showing a wide majority of Americans as Christian, and a major denomination the original Christians.

    There is a consistency between Constitutional rights and Christian beliefs that women have a basic right to bear a child, a healthy child as a gift from God, especially if provided necessary attention to fetal growth and development. So is Planned Parenthood promoting support of delivery of healthy babies, even similar to March of Dimes efforts in minimizing congenital birth defects? I think NOT. I don’t this is a debatable fact.

  • Yeah, using that as a headline was a terrible idea, it DOES make it sound like the the blog authors are the ones advocating genocide. The next conclusion one is led to by the picture of Barack Obama under the title is that Obama is the one who said it. It is not explained why a picture of Obama is even included.

  • ….because he’s standing in front of a huge wall covered with “PLANNED PARENTHOOD” in huge, red letters?

    Even if one didn’t know he’d spoken for PP in the past, it does kind of offer a large chunk of dark humor, kind of like having a chicken for the “spokesman” of KFC or something.

  • PP is no different than the KKK.

  • I think that’s a very serious concern as regards the title of this post — and given that know Tito is not able to be at the computer for long stretches at the moment, I’ve gone ahead and edited it.

  • restrainedradical’s Volkswagon comparison would be more convincing if PP no longer lauded its founder.

    Sanger’s portrait hangs in the board room of PP’s Atlanta office. Good luck finding Hitler’s portrait in any VW office.

  • The creation of an affordable People’s Car was actually one of the better and legitimate initiatives of the Third Reich (legitimate from a fascist perspective). A better comparison might be with buying Zyklon B if it were being marketed as a chemical to rid your yard of all pests from Ants to Zionists. I just don’t see that happening.

  • About the first comment… I don’t understand why all Americans seem to just misunderstand the whole of socialism? Would someone please answer?

  • Like the portraits of slaveowners in the White House?

    If the point of this post was to argue that Sanger should not be celebrated, then I join the author and I think even many PP supporters would approve Many would probably support a campaign to remove Sanger’s portrait from the boardroom. Other PP supporters might say that her racism is but a small stain on an otherwise great woman.

    But if the point is to paint PP as racist, you’ll have to provide modern-day evidence. And if the point is to discredit the larger pro-choice movement, you’ll have to tackle the issue of abortion itself, not these tangential stories of Depression-era activists.

    I only point this out because I see this sort of tactic often and I just don’t think it’s effective. To use another analogy, it’d be like someone using the priest sex scandal to imply that the Church is on a mission to molest children.

  • “But if the point is to paint PP as racist, you’ll have to provide modern-day evidence.”

    Perhaps the fact that reps of PP are on tape having no problem accepting a donation from someone who explicitly wishes to have his donation used to abort black kids.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338529,00.html

    Then we have the charming habit of Planned Parenthood locating their abortion clinics in or adjacent to minority neighborhoods.

  • Hey Foxfier,
    Meebbe we better get rid of the Interstate Highway system while we’re at it–that was another idea that owes some inspiration to the Nazis.;-)

  • Thanks Darwin!

    The quote is attributable 100% to Margaret Sanger.

    tour86Rocker,

    If you can come to those conclusions then let me introduce you to some truthers and birthers.

  • I agree w/ restrained radical. I’m seeing this line of attack cropping up more and more and it disturbs me b/c I think a) it’s not fully accurate and b) it’s ineffective and possibly harmful to our cause.

    The racist roots of planned parenthood and it’s founder don’t necessarily mean that’s what planned parenthood stands for today. Planned parenthood stands for unrestrained sexual freedom and abortion as their cash cow backup plan. Simple. Evil. They think they’re providing a good – that women need these “services” in order to fully realize their freedom. Sex is good. Sex without consequences is better and is the ultimate goal. So yes, they provide their evil twisted services in poor neighborhoods (which tend to be disproportionately minority populated) because that’s where their clients are. That results in a disproportionate impact on black children, but in their eyes that’s disproportionate for the good – minority women are getting what they (and all women) need. I see no evidence of a Sanger-like intent to reduce the number of black children b/c they are undesirable. Abortion and sexual freedom are the only desired ends here. As for the undercover tapes, I never found them as damning as everyone else did. Certainly it showed me that PP people have no principles (though, what do you expect from people who literally make their living on blood money). However, I don’t think it evidenced a racist motivation on their part. They think they’re providing a good and I’m SURE that look at minority specific donations as a benefit to a poor minority (like a minority specific college scholarship). That they didn’t care that the person giving the money was a racist doesn’t mean they were acting in a racially motivated way. Even the one employee who said she “was excited b/c she’d never done this before” seemed to me to be stalling for time and trying not to piss off the caller so she could still get the money. Again – no principles at all, but none of them seemed to be REALLY agreeing w/ the caller so much as yessing him just to get the money.

    We don’t need this line of argument b/c I think it is open to valid dispute. The pro-life movement has everything it needs in the scientific fact that a human life is being taken. Point out the disparate effects, sure (just like it’s good to point out that 1/3 of this generation is missing). However, it’s counterproductive to attribute that impact to a racial motivation that I see very little evidence for.

  • CT,

    I respectfully beg to differ.

    I am on the board of a pro-life organization and am quite familiar with the many practices that PP does.

    The racist beginnings of PP are carried on through their policies and actions.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57526

    I can see your point to a certain degree, but if we are playing by the liberal playing book, then PP is inheritantly racist and they should be called out for it.

    Especially when a the first president of African heritage has spoken at a PP event, it’s amazing how Margaret Sangers plan to use “social activists” within the “negro community” has panned out.

  • Perhaps the confusion is between the word ‘racist’ and ‘eugenicist’. PP is formerly named the Birth Control League and it was designed to exterminate the ‘inferiors’ so that we can be the masters of our own evolutionary process and become gods. Yeah, in its simplest form PP is the modern manifestation of the first lie.

    As for the modern agenda of PP, it is no different than it ever was. The only difference is the masterful deceit of masking the true intentions with socially acceptable images and politically correct terms.

    Anyone, especially a professed Catholic, that thinks PP is simply trying to help women make choices is sorely misguided. The are designed to kill as many babies as possible because lower-forms of humanity are a cancer on the planet and for our master race to thrive we need to reduce the population of undesirables including effete fag**ts, nig**rs, kik*s and the lowest of the low: Orthodox CATHOLICS.

    Ugly words. Face the truth. This is what PP is all about. Be honest. There is nothing defensible about this anti-human conspiracy.

    Not to mention their desire to engineer humans with embryonic stem cell and cloning technology. The massive dollar supporters of PP want to engineer eternal life for themselves to reign as gods over their homo-simian slaves. It is insanity.

  • American Knight, I’m not sure if something in my post lead you to believe PP is “simply trying to help women make choices.” I know PP has an evil agenda. But I just haven’t seen any evidence that this agenda is currently racist at an organizational level. Yes they are designed to kill as many babies as possible, but I don’t know that they care which babies they kill (ie I see no design to kill black babies b/c they’re black). They’ll kill anyone’s baby as long as they pay and I don’t think they care at all how that falls on the racial spectrum.

    Tito, I still don’t see how those investigations show racism on the part of the employees rather than an indifference to the racism of the caller so long as money is coming their way. Now, maybe that indifference IS a sort of racism and I’ll give you that. But the accusation is that PP in it’s current form carries forth the same overt/race-elimination kind of racism that it’s founder had. I would like to see more than quotes from their founders and videos showing that employees don’t care where their money comes from.

    Just for the record – I absolutely abhor PP and in NO way do I think they provide anything good for anyone. In my above post, I was referring to PP supporters’ subjective perspectives that abortion is a good thing to provide for women.

  • CT, I hope I did not make you feel as though I thought you support Planned Parenthood. I was just emphasizing that their agenda is a general reduction in population with a specific emphasis on the ‘undesirables”. The largest percentage of killing centers are in ‘minority’ neighborhoods. A third of the babies killed are black. Poor whites and South American Indians are considered as undesirable as Negros.

    Planned Parenthood is ultimately a tool of the Devil; however, it has a human face and the humans that perpetrate it are in favor of having a small white Super Race rule the world and a ‘manageable’ amount (500,000,000 or so) of sub-human, engineered homo-simian slaves. This only sounds like science fiction until the science catches up with the fiction. The fiction is not a fantasy it is an evil delusion that is shared by a sick cadre of rich trans-national eugenicists.

    To think otherwise is to disregard a large part of the New Testament. Don’t give the Devil and his minions the benefit of the doubt. The Evil One is real and he presents destruction as a pleasurable goal.

  • Here’s the thing. If a neutral person were to read that quote, “we want to exterminate the Negro population”, they’d assume that Sanger was a monster. But they might also find the whole quote on any number of internet sites:

    “The minister’s work is also important, and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation, as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.”

    Sanger wasn’t calling for the extermination of black people in that quote, she was seeking to prevent that false impression from getting out. The truth is, she didn’t want to exterminate them, she just wanted to thin out their numbers because she believed them to be inferior. Given that truth, we shouldn’t use selective editing to make it sound worse than it is. There are plenty of words and actions of Sanger’s that can make the argument fairly.

Glory

Monday, January 18, AD 2010

“Once let the Black man get upon his person the brass letters US, let him get an eagle on his button and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pockets, and there is no power on earth which can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship in the United States.”

               Frederick Douglass

Blacks after the Civil War would be shamefully denied equal rights for a century.  However, that sad fact does not detract in the slightest from the heroism of black troops fighting to preserve a nation that had given them little reason to love it.  The great lesson of the Civil War is that we are all Americans, all part of this experiment in self-government, and it is a lesson to be remembered on this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Glory

  • It is a very noble thing to risk your life for a great cause.

    Yet among all the means of fighting for justice, MLK demonstrated the redeemed form, living the call that John Paul II made in his encyclical Centesimus Annus: “May people learn to fight for justice without violence”.

    Many abolitionists believed in Christian non-violence (or ‘non-resistance’ as it was known then), including William Llyod Garrison. His is a fascinating and contradictory story, and reminds me somewhat of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

  • Garrison abandoned his pacifist views at the onset of the Civil War Nate, and whole-heartedly supported the Union war effort.

  • Blacks have fought in every war this country has ever been involved in going back to the Revolutionary War, but none was more poignant than the civil war which their very freedom from slavery was at stake. In his second inaugural address Lincoln suggested that the war may be a divine punishment for the national sin of slavery;

    “He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope—fervently do we pray—that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”

    How ironic that there is still economic and moral slavery being imposed on them by a President who claims to be one of their own. This slavery has two forms; economic slavery via the “community organizing” through groups like ACORN to implement Cloward/Piven Strategy inspired by Saul Alinsky, designed to foster dependence on government welfare with the intent to bankrupt the system and impose socialism; moral slavery through his unbridled support of Planned Parenthood which targets minority communities.

    Both of these are using “his own people” towards his political ends, so the ends justify the means. In that regard he makes Machiavelli look like a monk.

  • From what I know, Garrison upheld his commitment to ‘non-restance’ even while supporting the war. His speech on John Brown is interesting:

    “A word upon the subject of Peace. I am a non-resistant—a believer in the inviolability of human life, under all circumstances; I, therefore, in the name of God, disarm John Brown, and every slave at the South. But I do not stop there; if I did, I should be a monster. I also disarm, in the name of God, every slaveholder and tyrant in the world. (Loud applause.) For wherever that principle is adopted, all fetters must instantly melt, and there can be no oppressed, and no oppressor, in the nature of things. How many agree with me in regard to the doctrine of the inviolability of human life? How many non-resistants are there here to-night? (A single voice—”I.”) There is one! (Laughter.) Well, then, you who are otherwise are not the men to point the finger at John Brown, and cry “traitor”—judging you by your own standard. (Applause.) Nevertheless, I am a non-resistant, and I not only desire, but have labored unremittingly to effect the peaceful abolition of slavery, by an appeal to the reason and conscience of the slaveholder; yet, as a peace man—an “ultra” peace man—I am prepared to say, “Success to every slave insurrection at the South, and in every slave country.” (Enthusiastic applause.) And I do not see how I compromise or stain my peace profession in making that declaration. Whenever there is a contest between the oppressed and the oppressor,—the weapons being equal between the parties, —God knows that my heart must be with the oppressed, and always against the oppressor. Therefore, whenever commenced, I cannot but wish success to all slave insurrections. (Loud applause.) I thank God when men who believe in the right and duty of wielding carnal weapons are so far advanced that they will take those weapons out of the scale of despotism, and throw them into the scale of freedom. It is an indication of progress, and a positive moral growth; it is one way to get up to the sublime platform of non-resistance; and it is God’s method of dealing retribution upon the head of the tyrant. Rather than see men wearing their chains in a cowardly and servile spirit, I would, as an advocate of peace, much rather see them breaking the head of the tyrant with their chains. Give me, as a non-resistant, Bunker Hill, and Lexington, and Concord, rather than the cowardice and servility of a Southern slave plantation.”

    (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=569)

  • “The Civil War forced Garrison to choose between his pacifist beliefs and emancipation. Placing freedom for the slave foremost, he supported Abraham Lincoln faithfully and in 1863 welcomed the Emancipation Proclamation as the fulfillment of all his hopes.”

    http://www.biography.com/articles/William-Lloyd-Garrison-9307251

  • The sheep are at the mercy of the wolves if they don’t have sheepdogs guarding them. Occasionally, a sheepdog turns out to be a wolf in disguise. That doesn’t negate the need for sheepdogs.

    One of my favorite movies of all times is “Glory.” I own it; tonight would be a good time to view it again.

  • The death of constitutional government: the federal government by force of arms imposing its policy will on reluctant states. The only reason it is not condemned as it should be is that the policy in question was a good one: abolition. The means to acheive it were horrible and permanently changed our nation from one of limited federal power to nearly limitless federal power.

    That being said, Glory is a fine movie and the story of blacks in the War of Southern Independence has not been yet fully told.

  • The Union was worth a war to preserve Tom, and I can think of at least two Presidents from the South, Andrew Jackson and Zachary Taylor, who would agree with me.

  • I find the notion of a war to compel the states and their citizens to remain in a “union” by conquest contrary to very notion of freedom, self-determination, and subsidiarity.

    Nevertheless, I recognize that there are at least some viable constitutional arguments for military conquest to keep people in a union they do want to be in (though I find them inadequate). But Lincoln’s attempt to alter the war into a crusade against slavery was another matter entirely, there being not one shred of arguable constitutional authority to support it, anymore than the federal government could invade Virginia today to force her to abolish the use of or trade in tobacco; or, to put a case dearer to the hearts of Catholics, invade Massachussets to compel that state to abolish abortion.

  • The Constitution was not a mere Confederation Tom. It created a new nation. A majority of the people of that nation wanted to preserve it rather than to see it rent asunder.

    Lincoln of course had the power as a war measure to emancipate slaves in territory in rebellion. The Thirteenth Amendment made the abolition of slavery part of the Constitution, and ratified Lincoln’s action.

    The ironic thing, one of many actually, about the Civil War, was that slavery would have endured in the South for years to come, but for the secession stampede after the 1860 election. By attempting to dissolve the Union to preserve slavery, the Confederacy wrote out the death warrant for the peculiar institution.

  • Donald, I think history has misread Garrison. His beliefs were more complex than a simple pacifist-warrior dichotomy.

  • Nate, you don’t get to support the bloodiest war in our nation’s history and still get to call yourself a pacifist. I would note however that Garrison did support the right of some of his sons to avoid service, because they did not wish to fight with “carnal weapons” as Garrison phrased it.