Salutations and welcome to, or back to, the Gauntlet of Balthazar for Part II of "Republicans Versus the Race Party...I Mean the Democrats (1854-1921).
I'm guessing that if you did read through the last post in this series, you either fully take my point, or are in such a state of left-right partisan denial that you either perceive the facts, yes facts, presented here as "fake news" or "lies", you have rationalized that "it was all a very long time ago", or that there was such a mythical occurrence often referred to as a "party switch".
I know that unlike real liberals, or I guess I should say, moderate Democrats - an ardent Marxist might even add that it all of this history stuff really doesn't matter because it's all about the post-modern "now' and that all truths are subjective, and besides, both of the major political parties of the United States were founded on an oligarchic and exploitative racist premise rather than a set of lofty philosophic and Constitutional goals, so it's all moot, and the entire system should be destroyed a.s.a.p - ideally replaced with a Socialist "utopia"...that they of course will run.
Well, pull up a chair and stay a while because in this installment the march of history will take us from the founding of the Republican Party in 1854 till the end of World War I and Woodrow Wilson's presidency in 1921. Surely the same rebuttals to this overview can and will be logged, but I believe that by the end of the series you will see that my central thesis will be fully illuminated: which is, that the Democratic Party has for the most part consistently focused on a lurid race-based platform through its history. I will show, and have shown, how from the DNC's founding that Democrats sought to pervert a liberal aspect of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party in order to bolster not just the continuation of African-American chattel slavery, but to encourage it's growth in newly acquired states.
In the aftermath of the Civil War we will see how this Anti-Republican / Anti-Northern sentiment contributed to the founding of ethno-identitarian movements such as the Klu Klux Klan, and the diminished rights of free African-Americans under the Jim Crow laws through the "Gilded Age". I will then show how the Progressive Movement in the early twentieth century was forced to find a home almost exclusively among Republicans due to the bane-fullness of the Democratic platform, while contrarily in Great Britain, Progressiveness was clearly a left-wing phenomena. Lastly, we will examine period movements that the Democrats did indeed come to embrace and fuse into their platform in the WWI era - these being namely Trans-National Globalism and the highly questionable Eugenics Movement - a precursor of German National Socialist race theory.
Looking forward to the next part of this article to the 1921-1974 time period, we will look at Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and the emergence of the Military-Industrial Complex, the so-called "party switch", President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program and Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and eventually, we will look at the current year - where we can now all plainly see the Democratic Party platform rife with the "woke" politics of racial identity - wrapped in a nauseating veneer of Socialist class, race and gender warfare.
Whether being hawkish on appropriating Native American land after the War of 1812, to seeking to keep Catholic immigrants out of America, or oppressing blacks in the nineteenth century, enfeebling them in the urban ghettos in Civil Rights era, and plying Marxist race, class, and gender warfare theory in order to exacerbate victim-hood identity and racial animosity - this, is par for the consistent course of the left, or I should say, the Democrats.
So let's get started, shall we.
Part Three: 1854-1877 (The Civil War Era and Reconstruction)
As previously mentioned in the prior installment many Southern Whigs, reflecting the adversarial underbelly of the party among
it's Anti-Masonic constituents, rather than joining one of the two parties straight out opted to join the xenophobic,
anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic American Republican Party (not to be confused with National Republican Party of John Quincy Adams). Perhaps to forgo confusing the populace with a similarly named entity, it was soon renamed the Native American Party - as in Native-born Americans, not Native Americans as in indigenous Indians. The party was soon after renamed the American Party (in 1855), but was commonly referred to as the Know Nothing Party (1844-1860). They even had a oath-bound secret wing know as the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner created by Charles B. Allen in New York City. Conflicts involving the Nativist movement and their adversaries took place in major US urban areas, and can be seen in historical dramatic form in films such as Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York".
Lewis Levin; often referred to as "Uncle Sam's youngest son" and "Citizen Know Nothing".
Born in 1808 in Charleston, South Carolina, Levin was quite the unusual character - an activist, a lawyer, a congressman for the First District of Pennsylvania, a frequent duelist, anti-alcohol crusader, clearly not a religious Jew who intermarried, and spawning from a family rife with mental illness. While Levin himself did not seem to possess particular personal animus toward Catholics, he nonetheless appealed to those who despised them, and it was this ethno-religious identitarian constituency that served as his power base. If I had to find a current parallel for the Know Nothing's it would probably be the "Alt-Right", though generally speaking, Alt-Righter's are not really best described as "right" as they are anti-Constitutional, economically Socialist, Ethno-Fascists.
But, carry on...
Of the somewhat collectively unremarkable mid-nineteenth century U.S. Presidents who served in the period following Andrew Jackson up to the Civil War, their names, states of origin, and party affiliations are as follows: Martin Van Buren 1837-1841 - New York (Northern Democrat), William Henry Harrison - Virginia (Southern Whig), John Tyler 1841-1845 - Virginia (Southern Whig), James K. Polk 1845-1849 - North Carolina / Tennessee (Southern Democrat), Zachary Taylor 1849-1850 - Virginia (Southern Whig), Millard Fillmore 1850-1853 - New York (Northern Whig / Know Nothing Party after 1856), Franklin Pierce 1853-1857 - New Hampshire (Northern Democrat), and James Buchanan 1857-1861 - Pennsylvania (Northern Democrat).
As you may note, these officials were for the most part Southern Whigs or Northern Democrats (and one Southern Democrat and Know Nothing switcher) with not a single Republican in sight. On some level this only made sense as Washington D.C. was firmly in Democrat establishment territory (Virginia) since Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican days, and as slavery was "their" issue, their base was fired up to hold onto the institution. Republicans had been pretty much "pushed out", and their increasing abolitionist sentiments garnered quite the adversarial response from their Democrat opponents.
As I pointed out in Part One of this article, the Democrats did indeed absorb many of the Libertarian notions that were part of Thomas Jefferson's Anti-Establishment derived party, but while Jefferson held a firm disdain for religious authority, Democrats of the mid-nineteenth century period utilized their Protestantism to bolster the moral justification of holding other humans in bondage. If you are unaware of this phenomena, I'll explain just how they managed to do this, philosophically. You see, in their reading of the bible, or more specifically the "Old Testament", otherwise known as the Jewish Torah, they observed that slavery among the Jews of ancient times was sanctioned - as long as the Jewish slave-holder did not hold another Jew as the slave. Islam later incorporated the same motif, and thus, Muslims were quite eager about slavery in the Middle Ages, as long as their slaves were culled from Pagan (Sub-Saharan African and Eastern European) stock.
Be that as it may, these post-colonial goyim were no Semites, nor were their African slaves of Hamitic background as they were prior to their importation to the new world, predominately of West African (Bantu) origin. Regardless, this was the applied religious thinking utilized to philosophically fortify the institution of slavery, and thus, the more religious the better. In fact, it almost goes without saying that convincing your slaves to buy into this religious paradigm was ideally the first order of business.
And so, with a bible in one hand and a sword in the other, this same rational fueled the Indian Removal Policies of Andrew Jackson's Democrats onward, and bolstered white ethno-identitarianism, anti-immigrant xenophobia, and anti-Catholic sentiment. It was this thinking, most earnestly expressed in the ranks of the Southern Democrats, that urged those Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs who sought to temper the slavery issue, to create a number of Pro-Union parties that came about immediately predating the outbreak of the American Civil War.
It should be noted that the abolitionists - embodied almost exclusively in the ranks of the Republican Party (and their allies among disenfranchised "Barnburner" Democrats), held the reins of state almost exclusively from the Civil War onward in the 1861-1933 period. Turnabout being fair-play and all that. The only exceptions to this golden age of Republican dominance was the National Unity Party Democrat Vice-President Andrew Johnson - who finished out and followed Abraham Lincoln's term after his assassination (1865-1869), Grover Cleveland's two interrupted stints (1885-1889, 1893-1897), and Woodrow Wilson's two terms (1913-1921). Needless to say this only made sense, as the Federal government was after the war firmly Republican ground, and Democrats had to slowly gain Republican trust in order to be part of the national government and dialogue once again.
But let's get back to the years immediately leading up to the Republican-Democrat / North-South fracture that broke the Union - otherwise know as the American Civil War.
Opposition Party", the OP was exclusively represented in the south from 1858-1860. However, their fire was short-lived, and they, as well as the American Party (or Know Nothing Party) soon fused with many Southern (Cotton) Whigs and Unionist Democrats and became
know as the Unionist Party (1852-1866).
Strange bedfellows they may seem, but as all were Pro-Slavery, but also Pro-National government, and Anti-Republican, the old civic nationalism of Thomas Jefferson persisted and molded all three into the core of the the successor of the Unionist Party, know as the Constitutional Union Party (1860-1861). In many ways the CUP was the last entity that sought a true compromise between Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats in a final effort to avoid the increasingly clearly forthcoming war between north and south. However, it can't be mentioned enough that Jefferson's libertine values were largely lost on these fallen Whigs, who had become little more than slavery apologists. In fact, their party can only be described as a Southern Unionist religious center-right party - far more Conservative than a libertine like Jefferson could envision.
Perhaps members of the Constitutional Union Party thought that the imminent war could be averted, and that tempers would cool and the status quo of ignoring the slavery issue would be the order of the day once more. After all, there was indeed a "stall" embedded in the US Constitution deferring the legislature from confronting the contested issue of slavery for fifty years from the signing, so perhaps they weren't completely unrealistic, only if not for retrospect. But this compromise codicil was specifically included by both sides as a balm for the nation to come into existence as one unified entity, capable of focusing on forging a nation free from the British yoke rather than immediately fighting a Civil War at the founding. Surely, that would have only supplied the means by which the British would re-take their lost colonies.
As the war increasingly took it's bloody toll and compromise fell away, the only third party to survive was the successor of the Unionist Party, re-dubbed the Unconditional Union Party (1861-1866). Formed in Missouri, the UUP was ideologically Classically Liberal as well as being both Federalist and Pro-Union, so it should come as no surprise that in the aftermath of the Civil War their members merged into, you guessed it - the Republican Party. Once again the push and pull of Jefferson's Libertarian civic nationalism and John Adams' Federalism was firmly represented an internal counter-point within the Republican camp - not on the Democrat side of the aisle.
Thus, as we can plainly see, the majority of those holding abolitionist, pro-union thought invariably ended up Republican, while the majority of Democrats through the nineteenth century firmly held to secessionist thinking and race politics - endorsing the aggrandizement of slavery, the diminishing of Native American territory, and thereafter adding a pinch of Nativist anti-Catholic immigrant sentiment to their repertoire.
Obviously the war served to crystallize the Republican party, and ever since the GOP has been referred to as "the party of Lincoln", but for the purposes of this article, Lincoln's well-known life, and minutia about Civil War combat is fairly superfluous. So, I'll just press fast forward...
After the War, only the two familiar parties survived the once fractious American political landscape - the Republicans and the Democrats. This period, know as the Reconstruction (until 1877), could easily be described as the "de-southification" of the South. In essence the national government - almost entirely dominated by Republicans, administered the South as a territory of conquest. For thirteen years Republican's sought to mold the eleven former Confederate states back into Union states, meanwhile insuring the rights of newly freed African-Americans.
The more radical the Republican Senator, the more extreme those rights were sought to be insured and implemented. The more earnest the Democrat the more those rights were sought to be undermined.
On July 9th, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified as thousands of Northerners still flooded into the south in order to build schools for the freed slaves, as well as to fill government posts and Church pulpits, while others assisted the U.S. Army administration and the Freedman's Bureau in re-shaping the African-American community. These Republicans, often pejoratively called "carpetbaggers" by the "occupied" Southerners, often promoted and elected freed blacks to local and national government offices, much to the chagrin of the humbled secessionists who lived below the Mason-Dixon line. Boo-the freak-hoo!
Part Four: 1878-1900 (Jim Crow Laws, Immigration, and The Gilded Age)
With the unionization of the Confederate States complete (i.e. the withdrawal of Federal troops) the south gradual reincorporated home rule, and the Democrats quickly got back to work on their "race problem". Their solution (aside from forming groups like the Klu Klux Klan), was of the legislative sort, and starting in the late 1870's southern state governments got busy passing a series of race-based parameters designed to keep freed African-Americans in a position that the former slave holders were comfortable with. This legislation is now collectively known as the "Jim Crow Laws", and these retro-medieval practices were enforced until 1965 - the year of my birth. Ouch, I'm dating myself!
It should be pointed out here that while the former slaveholders, as wealthy persons, had almost as much control of the economy and culture of the south as they did before the war, they accounted for only about 6% of the total southern population. Forgoing any modern leftist notions of collective onus, or "privilege", and all that, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this of
course means that 94% of all southerners did not own slaves, and that many
very well might have been well-meaning folk. Adding to that slavery was
almost non-existent in the north, this brings the percentage of slave
holding families in the Civil War period down to about 1.4% of the total
white population. That might sound like a diminution of the matter,
but in a society where 90% of all blacks were enslaved and only 10% were
free in the north, the fact remains that some 4,392,000
African-Americans had been slaves less than thirteen years earlier.
Sadly, an often ignored fact that speaks volumes about human nature is
that the same percentage of southern blacks owned other southern blacks
as did whites, and often served as "breeders". This had become much more of an important aspect especially once the
federal government passed the Act Prohibiting the Importation of (new) Slaves
in 1808, under President Thomas Jefferson - ironically a conflicted
slave holder himself.
Honestly, a survey of the Jim Crow Laws could account for an article (or book) all of its own, but the main thrust of the laws were to rob the vote from free blacks, and to segregate them from whites in public schools, as well as in a number of other public forums, such as eateries and the like. Add to it that share-cropping basically hoisted economic serfdom on blacks, it seems not a great advance from full chattel bondage. But I guess the alternative would have been for the north to indefinitely occupy the south with Union military for the next eighty years, or to not recognize the former Confederate States as U.S. States and keep them as "administered territories", but that sounds like a literal alternate-history dystopian nightmare.
Regardless, the first true chinks in the armor of Jim Crow occurred in the mid 1950's with notable Supreme court desegregation cases such as Brown vs. the Board of Education, and of course Rosa Parks choosing to sit in an undesignated section of her local bus, culminating in the Civil rights movement of the 1960's.
But more on that later.
While the south grasped at simulating a romanticized antebellum culture, their waning agrarian economy was being put to shame by what was happening in northern cities. While this had pretty much been the same disparity since colonial times, industrialization, advances in technology and the creation of huge industries, as well as the arrival of waves of immigrants to work in those industries was changing the north in an increasingly dramatic fashion. Tapering from the "traditional" source of colonial immigration, i.e., the English, Welsh, Scottish, Scots-Irish (Protestants), French Canadians, Irish (Catholics), Germans, and Scandinavians prior to the 1850's, a new wave of immigrants to the US started to come in large numbers starting with the Chinese. They were soon followed by large groups of people hailing from Southern and Eastern Europeans, specifically Poles, Greeks, Jews, and Italians. These numbers eventually softened by 1910, but these millions changed the nature of northern cities, and new states, particularly in the west, all the way to California. Sea to shining sea and all that.
With the Whigs gone, and Southern Democrats firmly associated with slavery and segregation, this meant that Northern Democrats were desperately scrambling to find constituents, and constituents they did find in these mostly poor immigrants. After all these newcomers required representation, and well, what better way to pull them aboard than by distancing yourself from the fact that your party was the pro-slavery party that started a civil war than by telling them that you represented them as disenfranchised "others". After all, this wave of immigrants, even the white ones, well, they weren't quite as white as the previous white settlers. They didn't speak English, or they were swarthy, or both, or they were members of "wrong" religions". So, racial politics it was for the Democrats, and they would be in it for the long haul. Trade Unions, aid societies, and convincing entire ethnic groups to exclusively vote for them was on the agenda, and I must say, they did a remarkably bang up job of it. Even today, some 40% of Irish-American Catholics, 57% of Chinese / Asian Americans, 65% of American Latinos, 75% of American Jews, and a whopping 89% of African-Americans, routinely describe themselves as, and vote almost exclusively Democrat.
So, how did this happen? How did, say, the African-American community, which once voted 100% Republican, and voted 44% Democrat for Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, only voted 11% Republican in 2016?
Well, I would suggest that this shift was completely due to public relations and perception, and a premeditated pattern of consistent messaging designed to specifically change a narrative from the truth, to what I see as a big lie. The Democrats might as well have followed the later advice of Adolf Hitler, who once famously said, "Never get caught telling a small lie, because once it comes time to tell the big lie no one will believe you." Truly, the series of untruths that they have hoisted upon their constituency over time can be at best only described as reprehensible. But I must say that the biggest culprits here are the Republicans themselves, simply because they consistently failed to offer the alternative, they never spoke up, they never refuted or argued. They bore the yoke of the Democrat's depiction of them with polite silence and temperate joviality for upwards of 75 years. For some reason they failed to realize that their opponents were playing for keeps, and would do and say anything to get and keep power.
I believe that this paradigm led to a comfortable situation wherein the Democrats felt entitled, and "tolerated" the Republicans - as long as they just rubber-stamped whatever entitlement program whims they wanted that quarter. This was the case, until the Tea Party and Trump, when the Libertarian, or Neo-Whig / Anti-Neo-Con faction of the GOP broke free from their Federalist chains and issued the DNC a grand ole politically incorrect slap on their increasingly Socialist kisser.
But I'm getting ahead of myself once again, so it's time to go back to the origin of the Progressive and Conservation Movement in the United States prior to World War One.
Part Five: 1900-1921 (The Progressive and Conservative Movements versus Eugenic "Science" and Globalism)
Gilded Age robber barons such as J.P. Morgan, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, Charles Schwab, and John D. Rockefeller, among others. These oligarchs pretty much ran America on the Republican's watch, and the Grand Ole Party pretty much facilitated these monopolist's unfettered growth. Hey, J.P. Morgan once even paid off the US governments deficit, out of his own pocket, cuz, you know, he could do that, and they would owe him later, of course.
Needless to say graft and corruption was endemic in Washington D.C. from the 1880's to the 1930's (like it's not now, right?), and at the tail end of the this period we had President Warren Harding and the Tea Pot Dome Scandal (1923) for example, which, if anything, only aided the Democrat premise that "Republicans only cared about themselves, and not the common man".
Their immigrant base, many of whom were exploited by these magnates, were increasingly joined by blacks moving north in search of new lives and employment, and both were fed a steady diet of resentment from the DNC, and step-by-step Marxist Socialist class warfare elements were incorporated into the Democratic Party platform.
But as I mentioned, while the Democrats have always played a race game, the Republicans still had the two philosophic threads at odds with one another in their party ethos. The old Federalism versus Libertarian push and pull was still there, and it served as rocket fuel for a renewed wave of anti-corruption, anti-trust, pro-worker, pro-infrastructure activism that called for the creation of government bureaus designated to deal with economic, environmental, and pressing social issues.
President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt (in office 1901-1909) and his Bull Moose Party (1912-1918), otherwise known as the Progressive Party. T.R. busted monopolies, created the FDA, the EPA, passed child labor legislation, and as a Conservative, (i.e. Conserving stuff) he is credited as being the father of the American Conservation movement, (now called being Green I guess), all the while being hawkish on American military involvement in foreign wars. I think it's this list of accomplishments that is the reason why Teddy Roosevelt is one of the four heads on Mount Rushmore aside George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln.
Shortly after taking office T.R. dined with African-American orator Booker T. Washington at the White House - much to the outrage of Southern Democrats. While Roosevelt had always been a supporter of Black Republican candidates, such as John R. Lynch, dating back to the 1880's, he afterward only met with Booker T. during morning office hours in order to sooth southern tensions. Regardless, his support was almost exclusively in the north, but unlike in the south he was on favorable terms with many Northern Democrats. In the South many Republicans preferred William Howard Taft as the candidate, and so his support base was quite similar to Lincoln.
While I personally have issues with some of the points of the 1912 Progressive Party platform, such as support for national income tax and inheritance taxes, the rest of it is just grand and will seem very familiar to current readers.
So, let's look at a few points, shall we...
Campaign contribution limits, registration of lobbyists (Trump just did this), no secret congressional committee proceedings (Congressman Adam Schiff IS doing this). A Federal securities commission (got it), a National health service (still working on it), and items that have come about - woman's suffrage, unemployment insurance, workers comp, minimum wage, an eight hour work day. In general, T.R.'s program, dubbed "New Nationalism", promoted a strong federal government (Federalism) which regulated industry, protected the middle and
working classes, and took on great national projects. It went against Democrat Woodrow Wilson's individualistic "New Freedom" platform, as that platform relied heavily on the civic responsibility of the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican's - finally an actual Democrat belief in the Democrat party! But also unlike Wilson and like Jefferson,
Teddy Roosevelt also favored a vigorous foreign policy, including strong
military power, which alienated Progressive pacifists. Then again this was a Progressive movement in the hand of Conservatives, unlike in Britain where Progressiveness was decidedly leftist.
I feel that the appeal of Progressive principles in the period was perfectly suited to a Republican "resistance", much in the same way that the Tea Party had it's place resisting Neo-Con dominance over the GOP prior to Donald Trump's election. Meanwhile, what was on the mind of Woodrow Wilson and his Northern and Southern Democrat friends?
I must say that Wilson is a thoroughly unlikable character, to me. A Virginian who became the governor of New Jersey, he almost reads like an Presbyterian rehash of Know Nothing Party founder Lewis Levin. He lowered tariffs, set up the Federal Reserve System, the IRS, and Income Taxes. While he was also against monopolies, and did pass some good legislation, this full house of economic, and maybe treasonous, sins are far too much for me to tolerate. Add to it that he was both a globalist and eugenicist, we can see the precursor of elitist Democrat "soft bigotry of low expectations" racism we see in them now.
Just as today, so-called "liberals" and "Progressives" claim that they are "for" people of color. When asked why they feel this way, their answers are invariably enfeebling, and they speak about the various "oppressed" groups they advocate for as if they are retarded children at best. This is the kind of thinking that forges a Lyndon Johnson - who intentionally ghettoizes a population and then claims that hooking them on government aid is the only solution - just to keep them voting Democrat.
Wilson was no different. He claimed he wanted justice and equality for "the negro", but he believed in eugenic science, as Margaret Sanger did. Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, is still a hero of Neo-Lib's like Hillary Clinton, and regardless of any aid her institution has provided to innumerable women, she did indeed create the organization for the purpose of eliminating a greater number of black, immigrant (Jewish and Italian), and poor white babies. Now before you get too ruffled, she states this in her own writings. So horse's mouth and all that.
Anyway, eugenicists believed they could strengthen the species by selective breeding, and as elites, they could make the choices of what was the best stock. This is what Wilson, Sanger, Henry Ford, and Adolf Hitler all share in common, and thus, Wilson, seemingly the least offensive of the bunch, is still unbearable.
Regardless, Wilson did eventually get the United States into the closing overs of World War One, but sadly he didn't use American might to temper the Treaty of Versailles from the ire of the allies. As such, the treaty imposed an overly harsh peace on Germany, which most likely contributed to Hitler's meteoric rise.
But I guess hindsight is 20/20, and how could Woody have know?
Then again, his "League of Nations" plan set the ground work for the creation of the United Nations - an organization that in my opinion has achieved very little except in the name of it's own aggrandizement, and the concept that it seeks to oversee the demise of the sovereign nation state. This prospect didn't work really well if one was a civic nationalist as propounded by both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams way back in 1789, and thus, Wilson has been traditionally reviled by Republicans.
Prior to F.D.R.'s landslide victory, regardless of the candidate's party affiliation Democrats were still only dominant in the former Confederate slave states, while Republicans were dominant in the Union northern states. But, the shift had begun, and Northern Democrats and their immigrant race politics shared a party rife with eugenicists and white supremacists in the South. Either way, the contention remains that the Democrats have and did, and do, focus on primarily on race, one way or the other, while the Republicans have consistently focused on the only color they ever cared about - green (as in money).
Till next time.
Post a Comment