Slavery and The Attempts to Rewrite Our History

3,941 statues have been removed, destroyed or vandalized since the death of George Floyd thus far. Their assault is interesting in that every attack is an attempt to bring about social change. This always includes the demonization of the past and either its eventual co-opting with a new identity or its utter removal. What is true in politics is often true in religion as well.

Old gods, goddesses, and sacred spaces were typically converted into demons, symbols of evil, or places to avoid by the new faith. Often traditions, such as the celebration of the equinoxes, were co-opted and given a new meaning; Easter and the use of painted eggs and rabbits (symbols of fertility) or Christmas and the evergreen tree and candles (rebirth and the hope for the return of Spring).

Sacred spaces such as springs or groves, dedicated to some ancient spirit, often for healing, were rededicated as symbols of the new religion by taking the popular god or goddess and rededicating them as a "saint"; sometimes with a slight name change to make it less obvious. The Bible's snake or serpent is portrayed as the incarnation of Satan and evil. However, that same snake had been the symbol of knowledge, wisdom, and protection by the Mesopotamian religion which had preceded it.

In politics, the removal of old symbols of power or status, such as the Nazi swastika (which itself was an much older symbol of good fortune and eternity) or the toppling of the Imperial Russian Romanov statues and symbols along with the destruction of Russian Orthodox Churches were the symbolic replacement of one system and what it represented with new symbols signifying new loyalties. It is the substitution of one set of values and traditions with another.

However, as in religion, former political symbols are often co-opted into a representation of evil (like the swastika, the fasces or the Confederate flag) just as individuals whose stances oppose the new system are routinely demonized regardless of the facts. This is especially true when viewing the past by the standards or morality of the present time rather than the historical perspective of their time.

For instance, a minority of people criticize America's Founding Fathers because most of them owned slaves (14 of the 21 Founding Fathers owned slaves at some point in their lives). However, they are judging these individuals from the advantage of over 200 years of change. They measure them by the values and morals of our time, not theirs. The majority of the Founding Fathers viewed slavery as abhorrent, often freeing what slaves they had (note too that most were inherited, not purchased).

The use of slaves was seen as essential to the economy, especially in the South, whose economy was highly labor intensive. We were also in the midst of a war with the most powerful nation on the planet at the time. We trying to create a new country. While many of the Founding Fathers called for the abolishment of slavery as an institution, it would have meant the utter collapse of the Southern colonies, whose support was critical (in fact, it was in the Southern colonies where the colonialists were having the most success against the British).

If the Northern colonies had insisted on an end to institutional slavery, as a few did, the rebellion would have failed. The colonies would have remained British. As for the institution of slavery, rather than ending the importation of slaves in 1808 or dissolving the institution itself in 1863 through Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation", it's highly likely that it would have continued (slavery formerly ended in the U.S. in 1865 with the adoption of the 13th Amendment). As it was, when the U.S. formally ended the importation of slaves in 1808, not quite 32 years after formally obtaining our independence, it effectively killed slave trade as a business in the West.

The British, through the Royal African Company among others, were the world's largest slave trading nation although more Arabs were actually engaged in the slave trade than the British due to their proximity while African tribal leaders remained the central purveyors of slaves, without whom there would have been no slaves to sell.

Thus, as a result of our 1808 prohibition, the British Government began purchasing the freedom of all slaves within the empire through the 1833 Slave Abolition Act using money it had borrowed. The debt was paid through taxes by the British people and wasn't paid off until 2015. It's something the United States should have done as well, but couldn't.

The result was the bloodiest war this nation has ever engaged in with an estimated 655,000 causalities. That's more than in any other war experienced by this country. The financial cost of the war, while hard to accurately determine, was estimated at about $7 billion dollars in 1860 dollars. That works out to be around $75 billion in 2008 dollars, when the last study was done. So, would it have been cheaper if Lincoln had purchased and freed all the slaves, assuming that would have even been possible?

According to the 1860 census, there were some 3,950,000 slaves in the United States at that time. About 30% of the population owned any slaves at all (the average was three). Ownership varied greatly from state to state but most Southerners owned none. Just 4% of slave owners were the wealthy plantation owners we typically think of. Slave value was based on age, gender, and skill level. Nevertheless, based on 1860 data, the average slave was worth about $800 back then.

Again, using 1860 dollars, that works out to be $2.7 billion dollars. In today's money, that's roughly $72 billion dollars or around $3 billion cheaper than the war itself, which doesn't take into consideration the lives impacted, the effect on the economy or subsequent cost of rebuilding after the war. It also doesn't include the social costs of Reconstruction or the divisions which still remain.

The British Slave Abolition Act occurred nearly three decades before the Civil War began in 1861 (the war almost began in the 1850's but was averted through the "Great Compromise"; cobbled together by triumvirate of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C Calhoun). So, why didn't Lincoln simply use executive power to buy all the slaves?

In 1772, the British Chief Justice Lord William Mansfield ruled that slavery was inconsistent with English law. As a result, Britain began the legal process of ending slavery throughout the empire. In 1787, during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, it was held that slavery was not a moral issue, but an economic one, thanks to the clout of powerful Southern delegates (notably South Carolina and Georgia). Attempts by various states to prohibit slavery were repeatedly overruled by lawyers for the powerful Board of Trade, located in London, which oversaw international trade.

It was during the convention that the infamous "three-fifths" clause was determined. It stated that slaves were worth only 3/5 of a person for taxation and representation purposes. This provided the legal framework for slavery to continue despite the desires of many delegates. It was also repeatedly emphasized by the Southern delegates that the purpose of the convention was the creation of a political union, not a moral one. Any "moral considerations" were to be left to the individual states. As an aside, let's remember too that the many of delegates, regardless of where they were from, wanted to create a relatively weak federal government which would have little power over the issues like slavery.

In addition, thanks in no small part to Eli Whitney's cotton gin, introduced in 1794, the South provided the economic resources for the emerging nation to compete on the world stage. "King Cotton" as it would become known went from producing 500,000 pounds in 1793 to 93 million pounds by 1810, representing half of all U.S. exports from 1820 to 1860 (it's worth noting that prior to the cotton gin, slavery, especially on a large scale, was dying due to the high cost).

Northern industrialists profited handsomely on Southern exports to the North, especially cotton, corn, wheat, tobacco, rice, and other warm climate crops, which were processed and sold overseas (most notably to Great Britain). There was every financial incentive for slavery, which was at the heart of the South's economic engine, to continue. Nevertheless, the slaves were freed.

As of 1865, about 88% of all blacks in America were slaves. Of the remaining 12%, they were either freed black men and women, mostly likely but not exclusively---living either in the industrial North or in Indian Territory out West. A small percentage were actually slave owners themselves (as hard as that is to believe). There are approximately 37,144,530 non-Hispanic blacks currently living in America (while the overall black population in the U.S. is on the decline--currently second behind Hispanics---the largest growth is from Hispanic blacks from places like Brazil and the Caribbean islands).

The best estimate among historians and sociologists is that about 60% of all non-Hispanic blacks can trace their ancestry to a slave living in America at some point prior to 1865. For most people their slave era ancestor was somewhere between six and eight generations ago. So, it's worth noting that at seven generations for instance, for every 254 people live today, they share one common ancestor. Thus, around 254 blacks today share a single black slave ancestor. If we were to award reparations (which I am strongly opposed to), is that the formula we should use? Just a thought.

So, what was Lincoln's plan for all the freed slaves? Early on, Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated that he didn't want to get involved in the slavery issue, and would leave it alone for the time being if it meant preserving the union. It wasn't until 1862/63 that his position changed. He knew he had to cut the legs from under the South's economic engine, and that meant ending slavery. It should be noted that his famous Emancipation Proclamation applied exclusively to the states which had left the union to form the independent Confederate States of America. Thus, technically, it had no legal standing in any of the Confederates States and Lincoln knew it.

Although Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, before he could start taking any concrete steps regarding the disposition of the former slaves, it appears that the "Great Emancipator" as he would come to be known subscribed to the notion of "colonization". Specifically, it meant relocating former slaves to Latin America, the Caribbean , or to the newly created nation of Liberia. Liberia was formed in 1820 by former slaves, most of whom came from the U.S.

In 1861, Lincoln has initially asked Congress for funds to do just that. However, Congress declined, citing the expense. From that point forward, Lincoln began to solicit funds wherever he could to help with this project. It should be pointed out, that Lincoln strictly favored voluntary colonization and not its forcible relocation of anyone. It's interesting to contemplate what American would have been like had Lincoln lived and been able to move forward on his plan isn't it?

There are many facets of slavery to consider. It did not originate in America and the Founding Fathers did what they could given the political, social and economic realities of their time while fighting a war against the most powerful nation on the planet. Lincoln too was constrained by the economic, social and political realities of his age not to mention a divided nation at war.

Today, there are many misguided individuals and groups attempting to assign blame where it doesn't exist. They are attempting to judge these individuals through the lenses of the 21st Century. They are, in effect, trying to rewrite history to fit a narrative which has little to nothing to do with actual history. We've witnessed a great many changes since 1776, 1787, or even 1865. The great majority of them for good, especially for minorities. Few minorities from history can say that.




Slavery in the Constitutional Convention


Founding Fathers and Slaveholders


Facing facts About Lincoln and his views on slavery


A List of statues across the U.S. toppled, vandalized, or officially removed amid protests

America: Is Destroying Statues and Disrespecting the National Anthem the Answer?

Forty. That is approximately how many Confederate memorials and statues which have been removed thus far (the number varies slightly, depending on the source). However, there are some 700 Confederate plaques, memorials, and statures still remaining to be either melted down and sold for scrap, or simply hidden away for all eyes to see. While a few of these statues were erected recently, many are closer to be being at least a century old. These forty or so remembrances were erected to honor and remember those who fought and died for the Southern Cause. Many of these range from small plaques to the side of a mountain.

Former South Carolina Governor Nicky Halley removed the Confederate Flag from the state capitol. Now she is Ambassador to the United Nations. Other states which still have references to the "Southern Cross" (or "Stars and Bars" as it's more commonly known) in their state flag, such as Florida, Mississippi, Georgia, or Alabama have been under pressure to remove them or adopt a new flag. We've also seen where demands that the bodies of Confederate General Nathan B Forrest and his wife be dug up and removed from a public cemetery and moved to a private cemetery by none other than Memphis Mayor, AC Wharton. Yet, while it hasn't actually happened yet, the Left doesn't have any shortage of members who would be glad to do it. Forrest was one of the South's greatest general (as an aside, while Forrest's body and that of his wife haven't been removed, there was an attempt by members of Antifa and BLM to remove the bodies which was thwarted). Can you ever imagine that Americans would stoop that low? It's not like we have no respect for the dead or honoring those who've fallen. Both the South and North fought for what they believed was right; both sides invoked God aid their cause.

Of course, much more has been done. Efforts have been made to prevent the display or selling of Confederate flags or memorabilia on public property. Some small businesses located on Civil War battlefields have been forced to close. There has been demands to change the names of streets, schools, and universities, along with any mascots or other references to the Confederacy (in full disclosure, I briefly attended J.E.B. Stuart Junior High School (go Rebels!) during the late 60's). The reason, if that's the proper word for it, is that the Confederacy was our own "evil empire" to borrow from the President Ronald Reagan and his remark about Soviet Russia. According to the Far Left (aka the Alt-Left), every Southerner at the time was a whip carrying low brow illiterate brut determined to carry on the institution of slavery for its own glory while the noble North, immune from slavery's ill-gotten profits was determine to liberate the down trodden of the South through its destruction.

Of course, that's all so much hogwash. Just under 4% of the entire South owned any slaves at all. Of that, around 2% owned more than three slaves and few yet owned enough to qualify as a plantation. Most of the South was small businesses and Yeoman farmers where the slave and their masters worked side by side and ate the same food. In some border states, free black landowners even owned black slaves (some scholars thing that the reason for this was that these individuals may have been distant relatives and the black slave owner was trying to keep them together). The beneficiary of Southern labor was primarily Northern businessmen who had a vested interest in perpetuating the slave economy since it produced low priced products. Who could resist a deal right? However, the importation of slaves ended decades before the Civil War (in 1808 to be exact); it was a fading industry. Technology was gaining ground. Slaves could be replaced and greater profits earned. Even the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, remarked that without the war, the institution of slavery would have ended on its own within a decade. Union President Abraham Lincoln stated several times that his interest wasn't on slavery, but the preservation of the nation. Even his famous "Gettysburg Address" and the Emancipation Proclamation, which followed one of the bloodiest and most destructive battles, Gettysburg, reemphasized this.

Lincoln understood that the South would not give up. It would fight as long as it could field soldiers. So, with his famous address Lincoln hoped he could hasten the end of the war. His Proclamation, which was technically illegal since it pertained to states which had seceded and he did not control, freed all slaves in the states which left the union. It was his hope that by doing this, the slaves would leave the fields and the crops would start to rot literally on the vine and in the ground. Knowing that this would mean mass starvation and since the overwhelming majority of Confederate soldiers were small Yeoman farmers, Lincoln anticipated they would begin deserting in order to tend to the crops and keep their families from starving. However, the Proclamation didn't include those slave holding states which, while sympathetic with the Southern Cause, did not leave the union (as an aside, many of these states didn't even affirm the 14th Amendment ending slavery until the 1970's. Seriously).

Ok, so much for the history lesson. The war has been over for 150 years. Nowhere was Confederate memorials, plaques, or the display of Confederate flags and so forth been an issue. Not during Reconstruction, as disastrous to the South as that was. Not during or after any of the other great upheavals in American history such as the Spanish-American War, World War I and II. Not during the fights for Women's Suffrage or right to unionize. Not during Korea or Vietnam. It wasn't an issue during the era of the Civil Rights Movement; the "Freedom Riders", the marches by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and Reverend Ralph Abernathy. It was never raised as an issue by Malcolm X or Bobby Seale. Even when the Confederate flag was hijacked by the KKK or later by neo-Nazi groups. People knew the difference; to separate those who fought and died for a war which ended over a century ago and those who sought racial division.

Why wasn't anything said or done under President Johnson's "War on Poverty"? I can't recall anyone from either the Democratic or Republican parties making an issue out of this...ever. Not even during the era of the Dixiecrats. Where was the outcry under Reagan, or Bill Clinton, or especially, during the two terms of Barack Obama? Certainly, if there was ever a time to ban flags on graves of Confederate war dead or make statues and other inanimate objects illegal, that would have been the time. But it didn't happen. Why is that I wonder? What happened? A few weeks ago, a young black female entered a Hobby Lobby store and begin a tirade over a display of stemmed cotton in vases. This individual went off; talking about how the display was an affront to her since her ancestors were (allegedly) slaves who were forced to pick cotton. WTH? Naturally, I wondered if she owned any cotton clothing or sheets.

As if that's not bizarre enough, we've had masked and unmasked members of "Antifa" and BLM try to block traffic on streets and highways, attack police officers during their "peaceful" demonstrations, shout down speakers who were invited to speak at their colleges and universities, dousing people with various nasty stuff, and tearing down statutes, plaques and anything else they didn't approve of. But that isn't the end of it. Not only have these individuals gone after Confederate flags, memorials, and the occasional dead rebel, they're expanding this to include remembrances of others they dislike like Theodore Roosevelt (what's not to like about "Teedy"?), FDR, Jefferson and the rest of our Founding Fathers, as well as prominent individuals whose ancestors may have owned slaves, and yes, even their mythic benefactor, Ole Abe himself. I'm surprised that they haven't tried to dig him up just to shoot him again. They've convinced some athletes at football games to disrespect the playing of the National Anthem.

While this statement hasn't set well with fans, it has spread to high school, junior high schools, and various football leagues (of course, many of these kids haven't the foggiest as to the real meaning , they know that their football heroes on TV are doing it and it gets them some attention). The fact is that if these rich jocks want to make a political statement, that's fine. They just need to do it on their own time, that that of the fans who pay good money to set in those seats or the fans at home for which advertisers pay big bucks to reach. Fans want to see a game. Period. If these players want to express their political opinions, do it on their time, not that of the fans or the advertisers.

There's also been a litany of other strange acts of outrage, like "cultural appropriation". Just what is that you wonder? Well, it's where one racial or ethnic group claims that a particular hair style, item(s) of jewelry, clothing, music, or even manner of speaking is exclusively theirs; no other groups is entitled to the use or part of what's being claimed. For instance, there is a YouTube video about a white girl around 14 or 15, being harassed and assaulted by some black girls (should I say girls of color?) in the same age bracket. The reason is because the white girl was wearing a hair style called "cornrolls". The black girls were demanding that the white girl remove them (I have no idea how you do that). Anyway, there has been an increase in this behavior. To my knowledge, "ethnic appropriation" of European culture hasn't been an issue. No one is demanding a stoppage to wearing shoes eating pizza, book reading, and so forth although there does seem to be a problem with the European habit of wearing a belt or suspenders to hold up one's pants which isn't being appropriated as much as it should. The fact is everything has been appropriated from somebody at sometime. That's what happens when people and cultures intermingle.

From my perspective, I think the growing "fad" or whatever it is of perpetually being "offended" by everything has gone on long enough. No one ever promised that you would never be offended by something in this life. I'm "offended" by all the wars-for-profit, corrupt politicians and governments, the encroaching surveillance state into my private life, poverty, lack of basic medicine or medicines with 3000% markups. I get ticked off by greedy warlords and corporations who prevent some from having fresh clean water or ample food. I get really miffed to see those weak abused by the strong. And yes, I get seriously irked when I'm asked to "press one" for English. I won't do it. Not now. Not ever. America is a multicultural nation, but that doesn't mean that each racial, religious, or ethnic group lives in its own enclave. Like my hero, ole "rough and ready" TR, I don't believe in hyphenated Americans. You're an American or not. You can keep your culture. You can keep you language. But in this nation, we speak English. We have certain traditions and core values. We accept people as they are and we don't try to impose our values or religion on others. If that's an problem, the solution is simple. Leave. Now. We may even wave bye.

Meanwhile, this "offended" fad needs to end. Like now. All of it started after Hillary Clinton was denied her coronation. All of it. I don't know who is behind it, but there is certainly money financing these "protests" and "demonstrations". I suspect it's to make Trump look bad and to keep occupied putting out fires. Even his own party is working against him, and naturally the media is. There used to be a tradition in this nation where we gave a new president the benefit of doubt and opportunity to prove themselves regardless of where we voted for them or not or our personal opinion of them (Harry Truman and Barack Obama are two cases in point). Lastly, I had many ancestors who fought on both sides during the Civil War and none owned slaves. One, a Confederate officer lost his arm. One, a Union sergeant, starved to death at the Andersonville POW camp just a few days before its liberation. I also had ancestors who were held as slaves--not indentured servants mind you. They were Irish, Scots, and German. Their oppressor in each case was the English (there's other lines who've been oppressed since time immemorial. Their oppressors were the stuff of legends; the Egyptians, Assyrians, Romans, French, the Vatican, Russians, Muslims, Spaniards, and Germans).

I had numerous ancestors who were oppressed over religious issues. Many didn't survive. Some did. But for all those who did, they excelled and prospered. What they lived through was put to good use. They honed work skills to become the best and they focused on education. Because no whatever happened, they wouldn't be depended on anyone because skills and education are two things that can never be taken from you. They refused to fall into the trap of generational entitlement. That's just another form of slavery.

We cannot allow our nation to be bullied into forgetting or covering up its history. We need it. It's a part of who we are, good or bad. It has made us the strongest country in the history of the world. We speak English. It's the thread that binds the fabric of this nation together. We come from every corner of the earth. Practically every religion in the world can be found here. While there are differing cultures, they ultimately blend into just one---American. So, if you're offended about a block of stone or piece of metal because you don't like the image or the message. turn your head and keep walking. That piece of stone or metal may mean the world to someone else and what's important to you may mean nothing. We are a nation of laws where no one should be exempt regardless of their income bracket, political connections, race, gender, sexual orientation or what your preferred entity of choice tells you. Again, if that's a problem, you're free to leave. Maybe that's the ultimate beauty of our country.


A Running list of Confederate Monuments Removed Across the Country



Confederate Monuments Are Coming Down Across the United States: Here's a List


The African Slave Trade



Introduction to Cultural Appropriation

A Future Misplaced

People are a curious lot, especially when we resort to "herd mentality". For some reason, we seem to have this tendency to act or think in a certain way just because we perceive or we're told, that "everyone else is doing it", be it some fashion or gaming or whatever trend. Maybe we've just been conditioned by Madison Avenue marketing types to follow these made up trends. Maybe it's genetic, or perhaps it's a little of both. Lately, we've tripped into something similar to herd mentality, but potentially much more sinister, and that is "political correctness" or as it's otherwise known, being "PC".

Why do I say that? Because political correctness makes use of the our "group think" behavior by attempting to alter a person's behavior into conforming to a often manufactured set of parameters. This effort generally includes stigmatizing, bullying, and sometimes includes the use of or threat of violence. George Orwell discussed this kind of behavior in two of his most popular books, "Animal Farm" and "1984". However, Orwell was simply writing what he saw taking place in Stalinist Russia, where certain ideas were "erased" from the public conscientious. It didn't take long for this to go from ideas or words and phrases to erasing actual people and events from the accepted history (it's been said that history is nothing more than a collective agreement of assumptions).

The Catholic Church has had a very long history of rewriting (or "correcting" to use their phrase) history through its destruction of "heretical" sects, religious texts and other books. It has deleted, altered, and reinterpreted hundreds if not thousands of religious scripture in order to promote its political-religious agenda going back centuries. Of course, many other religions have done so as well. More recently in history, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy , Spain, Hungary and Romania all made great use of politically correct behavior which included not just intimidation but made use of mass book burnings (as did the Catholic Church which, as often as not, was simply stoking the flames for the religious and political dissenters tied to the stake). However, none did it better than Stalin who even had photos and film edit out the latest political enemy along with all mention of their very existence (while sometimes inserting himself to create the image of the all present and powerful leader).

Here in America, we're seeing something similar being played out. Perhaps not to the extent mentioned above; at least no one has been burned at the stake, executed, or set to a concentration camp...not yet anyway. What I'm specifically talking about is the accelerating tendency to distort and/or attempt to erase a part of American history. We've long heard the story about how George Washington could never tell a lie when in truth he was a little shady on his real estate dealings or how Abraham Lincoln "freed all the slaves", which is patently not true. However, that is where I want to go with this article, namely the removal of our portion of collective past as a nation. Let's get started with ole log splitting "Honest Abe".

First off, Abraham Lincoln was born in Kentucky, a slave state, as was the first and only President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis (as an aside, both were born in log cabins). Lincoln's family moved to Indiana and finally settled in Springfield Illinois while Jefferson Davis moved to Mississippi. Lincoln would grow up being mostly unsuccessful in everything he did and hardly "honest" even as a lawyer. Of course, in time, and after numerous false starts, Lincoln finally succeed in becoming President, but it was of a nation which was deeply divided along many lines and had been since the 1840's. Davis would be more successful in his business ventures and ultimately become one of America's greatest US Senators. When he agreed to become President of the newly created Confederacy, Davis said it was the "saddest day of my life", but felt he had no other choice. Lincoln repeatedly said he had no opposition to the issue slavery with respects to the nation and would do whatever he could to keep the nation together, including the acceptance of slavery (privately, Lincoln opposed slavery). However, slavery was not the key issue for succession. It was only one, albeit a vocal one, of the many reasons for the division of the union---the two key factors being the issue of state's rights and economic development (which was brought to a head with Worrall Act).

Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, understood the complexities of succession. He even acknowledged that the institution of slavery was unsustainable and would very likely have ended on its own within ten years if not sooner. When Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, following the bloody and indecisive Battle of Gettysburg, it was in hopes of bring the war to an end. The Proclamation pertained ONLY to the states which had seceded and not to the slave holding border states and territories. Since the South was primarily rural, Lincoln hoped to draw Southern soldiers away from the battlefields and back to the farms as slaves left and crops began to rot in the fields. Of course, Lincoln's order was illegal in that it was being issued over territory where he had no jurisdiction, but he hoped it would have the same results. Of course, the industrial might of the North ultimately won and the South was utterly laid waste.

Decades later, veterans on both sides meet; some became good friends with their counterparts on the other side. Eventually, the widows, children, and descendants of both the North and South began to form associations erect memorials and statues. Even our current "Memorial Day", originally a Southern holiday, was adopted nationally. Now, some 152 years later, a new type of Civil War seems to be arising. We have a small minority of individuals who are quite adapt at being vocal as well as making use of the "politically correct" trigger, are demanding that all traces of the Confederacy be erased. We've already seen where decades of misleading education has created the popular myth of "Lincoln the Modern Moses " or that there was a single sole cause for the war when in truth, less than 4% of the entire South owned any slaves (the average was three). Most slave owners worked shoulder to shoulder with their slaves. Only 1% were the stereotypical "Terra" plantations.

These individuals and groups are demanding that all statues pertaining to the Confederacy be removed and destroyed. Thankfully, most are being saved and removed to less prominent locations. However, these demands include the renaming of schools, roads, and the removal of any and all Confederate flags or memorabilia from public property as well as museums, cemeteries, battlefields, or even re-enactments along with prohibiting the sale of related memorabilia. Failure to comply could result in threats of violence (sometimes it's more than mere threats), protests, boycotting and labeling as a "racist". As a result, state and local leaders have tucked tail and complied with these terrorist demands in the name of political correctness.

Now, as if that isn't intimidating enough, these same individuals are demanding an end to so-called "cultural appropriation". By that they mean prohibiting non-black individuals from wearing certain types of ear rings, hair styles, or clothing. Some have tried to extend that to creating "all black" associations, social functions like school graduations, and even "white free safe spaces". Finally, there is the demand for "slave reparations", which range from a cash settlement, a free house and/or car, to a guaranteed annual income or a tuition free college education, all paid for by a special tax on non-black individuals. The worse part of this is that some publicly elected individuals or appointed institutional leaders are actually considering this while a few have actually already implemented some of these demands!

I suppose that, in some ways, I can understand their frustration (note: since I'm not a racial minority, that statement can be construed as being "racially insensitive" or not "PC"). Anyway, they rightfully claim that, per Lincoln, those who left their masters would receive "40 acres and a mule". They were to be resettled in what was then called "Indian Lands"; that is, what's now Arizona and New Mexico. The alternative was a one way trip back to Africa, which some took. They founded the country of Liberia, which is basically the anus of the world. Home to huge blocks of poverty, poor sanitation, unsafe food, inadequate housing, a seriously corrupt government, and up until recently, ground zero for the Ebola virus. However, Lincoln's assassination nullified that verbal agreement (the reason for the offer in the first place was because Lincoln felt that whites and blacks would not get along well together). These individuals also claim, again rightfully, that because of slavery, they lost their cultural inheritance and connection to their history.

However, before they try to fix the blame on the US, they need to be reminded that slavery was introduced to America by the Spanish, then the Portuguese, Dutch, French and English. Even Native Americans, who were occasionally slaves themselves, held both white and black slaves. Furthermore, do you think any of these slave traders actually traipsed through the jungles in search of some hapless victim? Nope. They were caught and sold by other African tribes; usually as a result of a conflict or war, or some chief wanted someone's wife, daughter, property, or simply to get rid of a possible rival or troublemaker. Sometimes, these poor souls were sold to European slave traders in port; sometimes they were sold to Arab slave traders who took them East to sell (this practice by Arab slave traders still continues).

The fledgling US was among the very first countries to stop the importation of slaves into the country (1794 and again in 1807). So, who should be responsible, if anyone, for so-called "reparations"? Of course, there is the fact that there were actually some free black farmers and merchants who actually owned black slaves. We also shouldn't forget the non-slave free blacks in the North and in the so-called "Indian Lands" of the West, or those who came to America post 1865. Then there is the problem of multiple compensation given that very few blacks in America today actually descended from a slave. What about non-black individuals who were held as slaves such as the Irish, Scottish, Germans, Native Americans or Asians? They should be compensated too since they were enslaved by the same people (BTW, I am not referring to indentured individuals. That was a voluntary arrangement which often ended in freedom at the end of their term of servitude).

So what do we do? Is rewriting or distorting history the best answer? Should we try to bury the past by denying mainly WASPish Americans their history the way some blacks claim they were denied? What about those demanding the statues of Andrew Jackson be removed too? What do we gain by destroying our past or even the symbols of our pasts, or more importantly, what do we lose as a nation? Is it now acceptable to prohibit individuals from displaying pride in their heritage or honoring the dead just because a small minority claims to be "offended" or because you might be called a name? Do we try to forget the past by erasing its markers and symbols the way Stalin did his enemies? Do we reward individuals for something which may or may not have happened to an ancestor 150 or 200 years ago? If so, what about others who suffered from the same fate? Should be force museums and battlefields to close or cloak the truth, yet we publicly fund other groups simply because of their race? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy...or cowardice? Should we allow others to censor our words? What about digging up the dead? The City Council of Memphis Tennessee voted move to remove the remains of Confederate General Nathan B. Forrest, his wife and relocating them from the city cemetery, along with his statue. Is that morally right? Should all images of the Founding Fathers who owned slaves (including Jefferson and Washington) be removed, their homes closed and their bodies disinterred too (ironically, Robert E. Lee did not own slaves and whereas neither did Lincoln, his wife's family did). What about Union Generals who owned slaves, such as U.S. Grant, who came from a slave holding family?

Claims of "cultural appropriation" too is another case of "me thinks you protest too much" to borrow a line from the Bard's pen. Civilization has always advanced thanks to "cultural appropriation" . Perhaps this should be simply chocked up to another example of extremism, no different from the divisive political morass in Washington or the theocratic-based hatefulness taking place in Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa except this racism being perpetrated by the same individuals who scream "racism". We would do well to seek the middle ground; to reach for a societal equilibrium and strive for a consensus which serves the greater good but leaves our values intact. As for me, I am not afraid of words; of being called a name by someone who is likely to be more guilty of its meaning than I. We should stop trying to destroy the past. To do so is like setting ourselves adrift by cutting our historical anchor or throwing our moral compass overboard. We should learn from the past, embrace the present, and keep our eyes fixed on the future.


More states seeing Confederate statues defaced.

Third Confederate statue removed in New Orleans

Bulldozing Monuments and The War on American History

A Confederate General's Final Stand Divides Memphis

Who Supported What? Republican and Democrat Support of Key Issues

In my last article, "What's the Truth Behind Republican Claims of Supporting Black Civil Rights?", we examined the Republican claims that the GOP was responsible for "freeing the slaves", securing individual and voting rights of former slaves and those held in various forms of bondage, which was accomplished during and just after the Civil War while Democrats did everything in their power to thwart Republican efforts and turn back the hands of progress. We also looked at who was largely responsible for the passage of the Affordable Care Act, or as it's more commonly known, "Obamacare". As it turned out, the Republican claims were mostly true, but with a very important caveat. The Republicans who supported these measures were moderate and liberal Republicans, including Abraham Lincoln (a moderate) and Ulysses S. Grant (liberal), and those that opposed the "Civil Rights Act of 1866" as the various amendments were called, were conservative Republicans (Andrew Johnson) and reactionary Democrats.

My article also pointed out, as I have in numerous other articles, moderate and liberal Republicans (spitefully called "RINOs" or Republicans In Name Only) have been mostly booted out of the Grand Ole Party. Those who either went to or were already members of the Democratic Party (where they were tagged with label "DINOs" as in Democrats In Name Only), found themselves equally unwelcome, and so became Independents, which is now America's largest voting bloc and growing rapidly; Indies already exceed the total number of Democrats, who lag behind in second place and the much more distant Republicans, and are expected to exceed their combined numbers in only five years. As for Obamacare, the conservative and ultra conservative (aka the Far or Religious Right) Republicans, some Democrats and unions along with corporate lobbyists and professional associations opposed Obama's version, which was transformed from a unconstitutionally compulsory bill to a tax, which the Constitution permits Congress to levy. Nevertheless, many did support a much more efficient and cheaper form of national healthcare called "Single Payer" (which was also not a tax). Under "Single Payer", everyone would have the same core insurance with an option to purchase supplemental plans from insurance providers, but Congress, the President, and others in government would not be exempt as they are under Obamacare. Thus, money more so than party won the day and the vote.

Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to apply the same inquiry to more recent pieces of legislation such as women's right to vote, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Which political party was the central supporter to these key important issues? Let's start with Women's Suffrage and the right to vote. Few people know that women in America have had, at different times and places, the right to vote. In 1776, New Jersey allowed both genders to vote, provided they were property owners. However, by 1807, the law was changed to prevent women from voting anywhere in the state while in Uxbridge Massachusetts, women were allowed to vote as early as 1756. In 1848, the Liberty Party became the first political party to include women's suffrage as part of its party platform. It shouldn't come as a surprise to know that the Liberal Party, primarily a abolitionist or anti-slavery party, had as it's first presidential nominee was a Kentuckian named James Birney in 1840 and was closely tied to another political party called the "Free Soil Party" which included former Whigs and "Barnburner Democrats". Later, the Liberal Party would merge with the Free Soil Party which would shortly afterwards merge into the Republican Party along with Whigs and other, smaller, "third" parties). Thus, the women's suffrage movement begin as part of the anti-slavery movement which sought in provide equal rights across the board regardless of race, bondage circumstances, or gender.

In the same year, 1848, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Stanton began their colorful careers to gain equal voting rights for women as well. In 1850, Lucy Stone organized the National Women's Right Convention in Worchester, Massachusetts, thus bring together the three key figures of the movement which would span over 70 years. Together, they campaigned on the issue of equal rights which resulted in the passage of the 14th Amendment giving blacks equal rights as well as the right to vote. Their efforts bore fruit first in Wyoming in 1869 and then in Utah in 1870 (however, women were stripped of their right to vote in 1887 with the passage of the Edmunds-Tucker Act by Congress (this was mainly anti-Mormon Bill whose focus was on the issue of polygamy . Its sponsors was Republican George Edmunds of Vermont and Democrat John Tucker of Virginia). By 1900, Idaho and Colorado had given women full rights, including the right to vote, and so it continued until June 4, 1919 when the Senate approved the amendment by a vote of 56 to 25. The bill was filibustered by Democrats to prevent a roll call vote until their Senators could be present. Nevertheless, 82% of Republicans (36) and 54% of Democrats (20) voted in favor while 18% of Republican (8) and 46% of Democrats (17) voted against, and thus the 19th Amendment passed allowed to proceed and was state ratified in 1920 (Tennessee was the final state to ratify the Amendment on August 18, 1920) with encouragement from Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. Republican Speaker of the House, Fredrick Gillett, sign the constitutional amendment bill into law. All in all, pretty bipartisan wouldn't you agree?

So, how about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? The Civil Rights Movement, which led to the signing of the 15th Amendment by President Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX), was one of this nation's most traumatic experiences, along with the antiwar movement just a few years later which brought forth such diverse individuals as Rev. Martin Luther King, Rev. Ralph Abernathy and Malcolm X. The Civil Rights Act was more than a anti-discrimination issue. It was a voting issue and a labor issue as well. The bill came to be a central domestic policy piece of President John Kennedy (D-MA) following in the footsteps of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 and was aimed at ending discrimination of all kinds, from education to hiring, voting to opening up hotels, theaters, restaurants, stores, parks, and all other public facilities, burst onto the national scene in the first half 1963 in the form of riots, protests, fire hoses, and police dogs (in truth, there had been other, more sporadic incidents dating back to the 1930s, 40s, and 50s. It had been President Eisenhower (R-KS) who had begun to take steps to address these issues just before his term as President ended and had encouraged Kennedy to carry the matter forward).

Following Kennedy's assassination in November of 1963, Johnson picked up the torch and pressed forward using the power of the Presidency and his considerable skills (the so-called "Johnson Treatment"). Debate on the bill was intense on all sides and several attempts to stifle its passage or usher through more watered down versions were made on multiple occasions. Finally, a compromised bill made its way through the Congress and was signed by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. The June 26, 1964 edition of the Congressional Quarterly stated that 69% of Senate Democrats voted yes on the bill (46 to 21) while 82% of Senate Republicans vote yes (27 to 6). As an aside, all of the Southern Senate Democrats voted no. On the House side, 61% of House Democrats vote yes (152 to 96) along with 80% of House Republicans (138 to 34). 92 of the 103 Southern House Democrats voted no. It was further noted in the Congressional Quarterly that despite having a Democrat President, the Congressional Democrats had a much lower than expected support for the bill. It should be noted that the majority of Northern and some West Coast Democrats (i.e. California) were liberal leaning while overwhelming majority of Southern Democrats along with some Midwestern were very conservative. On the overhand, the majority of Republicans were moderates (later to be called "Rockefeller Republicans) with a minority leaning to conservative. Johnson himself was generally a moderate leaning Democrat (JFK, for the record, regarded himself as a conservative, especially on foreign policy).

As for the Clean Air Act, it became law in 1955 under moderate Republican, Dwight "Ike" Eisenhower as the "Air Pollution Control Act". This was the first federal law designed specifically to reducing industrial pollution and for providing funds to find methods for reducing pollution. In 1963, the Clean Air Act, which aimed to actually control pollution came into being. In 1967, the Air Quality Control Act was passed and signed into law by President Johnson . It's objective was to enforce interstate monitoring of pollution as well as establishing specific monitoring stations and study methodologies. Further amendments to the law were made in 1970 (often called the "Clean Air Extension Act" or the "Muskie Act" after the support of Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine (D) which was sign into law by President Nixon) , 1977 (signed into law by President Jimmy Carter (D-GA), and again in 1990 (signed into law by President George H.W. Bush (R-TX), considered by many to be the last of the Rockefeller Republicans.

The Clean Water Act became law in 1972 under the Presidency of Richard Nixon. The purpose of the bill was to ensure the availability and access of all Americans to clean water plus water treatment, discharges from various industries such as coal, oil and gas, and manufacturing as well as the strengthening and expanding existing laws pertaining to protection of wetlands (up to this point, many industries simply dumped waste water directly into rivers and streams unfiltered). The law also established monitoring and water quality standards and enforcement guidelines. Under the recommendation of President Nixon, the Environmental Protection Agency was also created with the purpose of protecting human and environmental health as well as providing the means of enforcement.

As you hopefully have noticed, most of the amendments and laws were the result of bipartisan cooperation, mostly between moderate or liberals on both sides of the aisle. However, by the time of President Reagan's "Southern Strategy", the GOP had begun to purge itself of all centrists and with the Speakership of Newt Gingrich (R-GA), there was an all out transformation of the Republican Party. On the Democratic side, Bill Clinton was often cited as the last center Left President, and ever since, the Democrats have sought with equal zeal to purge themselves of all center and conservative leaning party members. What is left on both sides are ideological extremes with no interest in cooperating. Both parties have equally sold themselves to the highest corporate bidders to the point where there is really difference between the two. Both parties now find themselves bought and paid for by the Oligarchs who now rule this nation formerly of ours.

The revolving door between six or seven figure corporate jobs and the government has been removed, leaving simply an connecting hallway. As for all those disowned moderates or centrists, they became Independents; the single largest voting bloc in America and growing rapidly. Within the next five years, there will be more Indies than Democrats or Republicans combined, which is just another tangible measure of just how far both corporate party are with the American People (though the corporate media still tries to divert our attention and either ignore or downplay the obvious). Finally, you know the facts should your hear or read some piece of party or media propaganda about who did what and cares more about the American People.



19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote
http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/document.html?doc=13&title.raw=19th+Amendment+to+the+U.S.+Constitution%3A+Women's+Right+to+Vote


Clean Air Act of 1963, Clean Air Act of 1970, & Clean Air Act of 1990 (Summary of Major Points)
http://redgreenandblue.org/2016/02/29/clean-air-act-of-1963-clean-air-act-of-1970-and-clean-air-act-of-1990-summary-of-major-points/


Summary of the Clean Water Act
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

What's the Truth Behind Republican Claims of Supporting Black Civil Rights?

I tend to get a lot of political advertising from all sides. With what I do, it's to be expected. Lately though, I've been receiving one in particular from different groups claiming to be "non partisan", but clearly they are toeing the Republican Party line. Each claim certain historical accomplishments often attributed to the other party, which made me a bit curious, and so I decided to check each of them out. The claims, in various formats, basically read as follows, the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery represented 100% of Republicans supported this while only 23% of Democrats did. The 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to freed slaves. 94% of Republicans supported this while no Democrats did. The 15th Amendment, which gave the right to vote to all native born had 100% of Republican support and no Democrat. Finally, the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"), which had no Republican support but did have 86% of Democrat support. The obvious implication here is that while the Democrats usually get the credit, it was the Republicans who actually deserve the kudos. So, let's examine these to see what the truth is.

The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution declared "...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction", and thus formally ended slavery in the United States, which had previously been enshrined in Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution, aka the "Three Fifths Compromise" of 1787 (the compromise was to keep Southern States from having too much influence on the presidency). The 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the States on December 6, 1865. Many attribute the amendment as a response to Lincoln's 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation" following the Battle at Gettysburg Pennsylvania which, despite popular myth, only freed slaves in the States which had seceded, while leaving slaves held in the Border States and elsewhere in bondage. The proclamation was viewed as illegal since the Confederate States were at independent coalition, and thus Lincoln's edicts held no legal or binding authority. Secondly, the reason for the proclamation was to make the slaves leave the fields and force Confederate troops to leave the front lines and tend to fields in order to prevent mass starvation, especially of their family, friends, neighbors, and yes, even the slaves. But who actually supported it?

There were 183 members of Congress present. It would take 122 "aye" votes for the bill to pass however, eight decided not to vote and abstained. That meant 117 was needed to pass the bill. Of the Republicans present, all of them voted in favor along with 16 Democrats. The final count was 119 to 56; just enough to pass. President Lincoln signed the resolution of February 1, 1865 (he would be assassinated on April 14, 1865. His Vice President, Andrew Johnson, followed him as President). Several states did not ratify the amendment until years later (Kentucky, for instance, was a slave holding border state which didn't ratify the 13th Amendment until March 18, 1976---yes, 1976). So how about the 14th Amendment?

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to insure that all former slaves were given the right to vote. The law would be passed by Congress on July 9, 1868, during the so-called "Reconstruction Era" which sought to impose economic punishment on the South. Previously, Congress had pass the "Civil Rights Act of 1865" which gave full citizenship to anyone regardless of race, color, previous condition of either slavery or indentured servitude as an effort to incorporate all former slaves into the Union. Mostly moderate Republican encouraged President Johnson to sign the bill, but Johnson vetoed it on March 27, 1866. The reason given for the veto was that freed former slaves weren't accounted for in 11 of the 36 states (these represented former the Confederate States. However, Johnson favored rapid reentry of Southern States back into Union without or without any protective rights being given to former slaves). Nevertheless, three weeks later his veto was overridden and the measure became law. However, the 14th Amendment did not include Native Americans. They wouldn't be given citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Again, not all the States ratified the amendment, but a sufficient number did to ensure passage (eventually most all of the States would pass the amendment with Kentucky being the last with its ratification on March 30, 1976...seriously). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment on April 9, 1866, also under the Johnson Presidency, in order to insure the rights of all former slaves and those held in bondage were protected.

So, the answer is that yes, the majority of Republicans supported the passage of the 14th Amendment, however, there was a group known as "Radical Republicans", led by Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, Horace Greenly, Thaddeus Stevens, John Fremont, and Ulysses S. Grant. The liberal leaning Radical Republicans were strongly opposed to slavery but were not abolitionists. They led the Reconstruction against the South and were often opposed to the moderate Lincoln Clique and the more conservative Johnson. The Democrats were largely opposed to the 14th amendment, partly because many were Southern sympathizers , and opposed some of the more ambiguous language concerning the nature of the citizenship and equality clauses (we continue to struggle with the language of this and the next, the 15th, amendment. Individuals have often hidden behind the wording and obtained citizenship through the use of "anchor babies").

The 15th Amendment, the last of the so-called "Reconstruction Amendments", was ratified on February 3, 1870. It too sought to convey the right to votes on all citizens despite race, color, or previous conditions of slavery or servitude. With the election of Republican (and leader of the liberal "Radical Republicans") Ulysses S. Grant as President, the GOP had determined that their future was tied to the fate of black voters, who had registered primarily as Republicans by this point while the Democratic Party continued to have deep roots in the "unreconstructed" South and where Democrat legislatures remained opposed to many of the changes imposed on the South through the Republican led "Reconstruction", especially as it related to full black citizenship and voting rights. The 15th Amendment was a compromise between the moderate and liberal Republicans on one side and the more reactionary Democrats on the other regarding issues voting rights. The amendment further banned any restrictions pertaining to race, color, and nature of a person's pervious servitude, but was ultimately adopted on March 30, 1870 (Southern legislatures would, starting around 1890 and continuing through the first decade of the Twentieth Century, begin implementing a series of "hoops" for blacks to jump through such as literacy tests and poll taxes, while poor whites would be often exempted through a "Grandfather Clause" incorporated into the law. Again, while hard numbers appear to difficult to find, it appears that moderate and "Radical" liberal Republicans were the key backers while Democrats mostly opposed the amendment as they had the others.

Moving forward in time over a century and a half, we come to the Affordable Care Act or as it's more commonly known, "Obamacare". There has been previous attempts at providing some form of nationalized healthcare going back decades (even Republican President Eisenhower had discussed it) which had been repeatedly shot down thanks to primarily to hospital, doctor, and insurance lobbyists. While they applied their "advise" and money most liberally, the Republicans were most open to their arguments ( In 1993, the Sunlight Foundation published a report documenting the tight ties between Washington politicians of both parties and the healthcare industry). In 1993, under President Bill Clinton (D), a committee headed up by his wife, Hillary Clinton, attempted to push through passage of a universal healthcare reform bill which was soundly defeated by a Republican House, although Senate Republicans submitted their own version which required individuals, but not employee, to purchase insurance with a fine for non-compliance. A bipartisan compromise bill which protected some transferability of existing healthcare coverage for those who had lost or change their jobs. Under President Obama (D), the proposed law was repeatedly dealt setbacks by leading Republicans. However, in November 2009, the AFA resulted in several "DOA" counter proposals and a filibuster. The Senate voted 69 - 39 to end debate on the bill and to the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60 - 39, with all Democrats and two Independents voting in favor (Kentucky's Jim Bunning did not vote). It then passed on to the House where it passed by a vote of 220 - 215 with the passing vote being led by Democrats. 34 Democrats votes "Nay" with the rest, 134 votes, being comprised of House Republicans (four Senate members didn't vote). President Obama signs the bill in March 2010 with an effective start date of January 1, 2014.

Republicans opposition to the AFA continued along with others. Unions (such as the Teamsters, AFL/CIO, Unite-Here, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Laborers' International Union of North America) opposed it as well for being "unfair to marketplace competition" . The Tea Party, business and healthcare associations as well as other conservative groups opposed the bill as well (the conservative Heritage Foundation had originally proposed a "Single Payer Plan" which was popular among who opposed the AFA). However in November 2011, in a most unusual measure, 26 States and the National Federation of Independent Businesses brought the matter before the Supreme Court based on arguments that elements of the AFA are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court upholds major provisions of the bill (if interpreted and applied as a tax).

So, what do we have here? How accurate is the claim that the Republican Party supported major civil rights legislation over the heads of Democrats, while opposing the Affordable Healthcare Act? Well, based on the information available, it seems to be fairly accurate and generally happened "as advertised". However, there are a few provisos that must be factored in as well. First of all, the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1864, which included the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments all took place during the Civil War and during the Reconstruction Era. The Republican Party was nearly brand new; a coalition of the former Whigs and other third parties. Politically, it consisted of liberal (or "radicals"), moderate/centrists, and conservative members. Lincoln and his clique were moderates. Johnston, who followed Lincoln, was conservative leaning (he later got in trouble with his party as moderate and liberal Republicans as he became the first president to be impeached. He would be acquitted by one vote), and "Radical" Republican U.S. Grant. This is a very different party from today's Republicans who successfully purged all liberal and moderate Republicans (who they sarcastically called "RINOs, "Republicans in Name Only", starting in the 1980's under Ronald Reagan. Today, there's not enough "RINOs" to drown in a teacup (the Democrats, who also purged their moderates, calling theirs "DINOs, Democrats in Name Only) . So, while the overall argument is true, we're comparing cherries to sour grapes (or would you prefer plums to prunes?).

The Republicans who opposed Obamacare (AFA), were more of the modern breed. They ranged from very conservative to hyper conservative/Religious Right. Most of those who opposed Obamacare but supported a Single Payer Plan were among the last of the moderates. Also, the moderate and liberal Republicans of the Lincoln Era, grouped around their party chief, but they also voted for what they believed was best not just for their party, but what was best for the nation. The more modern Republican (and Democrat) parties still tend to support their party boss, and thus vote along partisan lines with little regard to the needs of the country. But just as importantly (perhaps more so), they vote in accordance with wishes of their paymasters---the lobbyists who are employed by corporations. Over time, we've gone from our democratic republic as bequeath to us by our Founding Fathers to a defacto Oligarchy; the elite 1% and their corporate interests. The Republicans or Democrats can pretend (as they do during elections) that they are "arm-in-arm" with ordinary Americans. They aren't. If they are "arm-in-arm, we need to watch our backs for the knife in their hand. The majority of Americans, mostly former moderate Republicans and Democrats, are now registered as Independents and they make up the largest voting bloc in the country, followed by Democrats and lastly, Republicans (within the next 10 years---if not sooner---there will be more Indies than Democrats and Republicans combined).

There you have it. Question authority, always think for yourself, and then speak up and speak out. By the way, I hope to provide you in a upcoming article with information regarding both parties support of more recent bills, such as Women's Suffrage, the right to organize, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.



The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html


The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html


A Short History of the 14th Amendment
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2011/01/06/7518/a-short-history-of-the-14th-amendment/


Background of the 15th Amendment
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h415.html


The Affordable Care Act history
http://affordablehealthca.com/history-affordable-care-act/