Republicans freed the slaves, Democrats to save slavery

Just want to follow-up on this without the article getting muddied:

This isn't really fair to Democrats as I can't think of any rank and file Democrats who would see it that way. But intentions are irrelevant. The results by any statistical analysis you want to do (whether you want to look at one conducted by the Heritage Foundation or one by the Brookings Institute) show the same thing - those who find themselves dependent on government services are overwhelmingly Democratic in their voting patterns while the more independent of government services the voter, the more likely they are to be Republican.

Right now you have basically a 54 / 46 split amongst working Americans in favor of Republicans. What makes the country a 50/50 split is the 80 / 20 split in favor of the Democrats amongst those dependent on the government.

But the end result is the same, by design or not, the Democrats have focused on policies that effectively make slaves of a growing number of people. Now they're slaves of the federal government instead of plantation owners but they are still slaves.

Even those who do work are spending a great deal of time in bondage for the federal government. I will be working for the federal government until mid-May and then until nearly the end of June for the state government.

But unlike the "poor" most working people don't get very much back for all their work to the government. Most of January I worked to help pay the interest on the debt. I'll be working until early April to pay for welfare (social security, medicare, medicaid, etc.) to strangers who will rise up and argue that the rather trivial amounts of money, even adjusted for inflation, somehow justifies the 15 years of of $11,000 plus per year they'll receive if they live an average life span today) -- average social security recipient receives a check between $900 and $950 per month. Typical retiree today was born in 1939 and paid a trivial amount into social security even when you adjust it for inflation.

I work about 3 weeks to pay for defense. 4 weeks if you count payments to veterans in various forms which I'm totally fine with.

Federal government works have me at their disposal for a wee or so and other things (like "corporate welfare") have me for the rest of the time.

So we're working our asses off for the federal government but I sure don't see it being spent very well. What's worse, the government really needs me to work for them for another 3 weeks per year if they wanted to actually balance the budget.

There you go again, throwing hand-grenades at crowds to get at the one guy who wronged you (and some Democrat must have really wronged you at some point to be so neurotic about it all the time). Your broad brush strokes on history are done to hide truth in generalities. If you ask a Confederate why he fought, you would just as likely get a telling of the evil'Federalism' which the Republicans were forcing on Sovereign States. Lincoln, the Republican, is the only President to suspend habeas corpus in our nations history. There is a great deal I could go into about the Corporate Attorney who represented land-barons and railroad industry before being told he could be President. My study of history does not grant him the popular status of 'ggod guy' most are fed in school.
Besides this I note that there were repeated afforts in New York, Minnesota, Ohio, and New England AFTER the so-called 'Civil War' ( I think it is properly termed a 'Revolutionary War' and the 'Revolutionary War' was a 'Civil War') to grant to Afro Americans the vote, ALL overwhelmingly defeated in referendum after referendum. If this is so, and I assure you it is, then you tell me Brad, Why were the Northerners (termed Federalists) fighting? So don't go getting holier than thou and hold forth that Democrats are the racists. I say this to save you being laughed out of your own forum.
There is another way to view the events since the civil war you don't go into. Maybe the Democrats found the error of their ways, saw the evolving standards of decency of a maturing Nation and changed. Maybe they saw how the Federalists were but charlatans who told people they believed in fredom, but the only freedom they meant was the freedom of the rich and powerful to take by use of criminal legislation to corner the markets, runout small business, discriminate in hiring, kill strikers, oppress non-christians, dicate what a woman does with her own womb, give tax breaks to the rich at the expense of the laboring middle-class. Maybe Democrats found so many were suffering under this form of scam, they elected a FDR to save them from starvation, divestiture, and disease.
It is sad that anyone has to ask for a hand-up in a society such as ours. It is sad some are still blind to the facts that cause it. I don't condemn a hard working man or woman for catching the early bus to work and sweating at a meaningless job and still be unable to receive a 'LIVING WAGE' .
I also don't think Sen. Kerry, married to a Heinz, has any idea about the poor anymore than you do. He will be but the flip side of the coin of the realm, Republicratism. I don't think you'll win many converts to the Republican party (as in Bush) here with this stuff, most bloggers representing the Republican or Conservative point of view would probably beg to dis-agree they are on the side of minorities anyway. Well, maybe the guy who says," we have to kill the poor" (true story for those who haven't read it) is on your side.
What's your next persuasive argument Brad, you going to tell us how Democrats have lower IQ's, so they should vote Republican?

Wahkonta Anathema, do you even read the crazed rantings in your blog? For you to refer to anyone else as tossing hand grenades is just amazing.

I enjoy writing articles that are interesting. They aren't designed to be one that most people would agree with, just thought provoking.

I am a registered independent btw and do not plan to vote for Bush at this point.

One other hting you should know about me, I would be willing to bet that I grew up poorer than you.

o.k. Fair enough. I guess maybe we're in the same boat on that. I get accused of being the 'L' word all the time. Maybe I am in some areas. I just don't think of myself in that way. I always thought you to be a strong and vocal advocate for Republicans. I may be wrong to apply the labels I don't like applied to me. If so, I will refrain form it as best I can in the future, my fellow independent.
You do bring a posse of ranting one sentence Republicans with you to blogs though, you must admit. I guess I just wrongly assumed you were with them and their, "Yeah, yeah, you tell em Brad. Can I hold your books for you?" I honestly don't recall a case of you posting a provocative critique of Republicans though. Does anybody else? (Well, in all fairness, once you did say FOX news isn't part of the liberal news media, saying the jury is out on whether or not they are slanted for Republicans. Ha, Ha,Ha...) [excuse me].
My blog replies to you are always to provoke thought too in the anti, you'll notice.

and some Democrat must have really wronged you at some point to be so neurotic about it all the time

He thinks I called him a racist. But more to the point. While it's true that Democrats "bet the farm" on slavery and we lost, so what? We admitted we were wrong, we moved on and now we're better for it. The republican party has long been majority dominated by White Men. I have no problem with White Men, being one myself. While it was a "republican" who freed the slaves, going off of current political definitions of the parties, Lincoln would have been a democrat. And while it's possible you grew up poorer than Wahkonta, betcha the dollar I earn from the state government working as a professor that you probably didn't grow up poorer than me. But before we get into that kind of debate, I'd like to address your point. How many days/weeks/months do you work to pay for the federally funded highways you drive on? How many days do you work to pay for the education you/your children receive? How many days do you work so that our prisons stay operational? How many days do you work so that there will be a police? How many days do you work so that handicapped people can have access to buildings? How many days do you work to know that the courts function? How many days do you work to pay off that interest, which by the way come from deficits which reached their highest during republican presidencies? (link requires registration with LAtimes.com, it's free so if you really want to know...) Link And the list could go on... Now, obviously you make a good deal of money, but please don't complain and say all your taxes go to benefit someone else.

And you know what, even if they do go to someone else, those people are less fortunate than you. You make more, you pay more. If you'd like to change the way things are done get into politics, work it out for yourself. But for God's sake don't sit there and whine about high taxes.

Oh and Wahknonta, it was me who said Fox news wasn't a part of the liberal new media.

Cheers.

Jeb - you do know that anyone (including you btw) can look up the percentages of the federal budget are spent on the issues you describe (high ways, etc.). So you can work it out yourself.

If I may be so bold, your responses tend to imply that information on the net is somehow hard to obtain (such as demographic information on the homeless). Finding how much the federal government spends on various programs is a matter of public record.

All you have to do is figure out the percentages and then divide it by 365 days (1 year) and then look at what percentage of your income is going to state and federal.

If you had bothered to read, you would even know that I mentioned how many days we work to pay off the deficit for instance. If you want people to respect what you write, Jeb, you could at least show some respect by fully reading what others write.

As for who grew up poorer, I don't know if you grew up poorer. I know statistically I grew up poorer than 95% of Americans. Obviously if someone grew up outside the US all bets are off. My point was in response to Wahkhonta implication that people like me know nothing of poverty or being poor. Having grown up poor (by American standards) I am quite familiar with what it's like as well as what causes it.

I think all of you are crazy kooky political-minded fancypants with tinted glasses.
Being a republican doesn't make you evil, nor does being a democrat. I wasn't born with a label slapped on my ass proclaiming me for either.
It doesn't mean you support slavery or that you think everyone should kotow to the bum next door and turn him into rockerfeller while you become Ghandi and go without.

These opinions all seem, to me, to be extremely exaggerated connotations and generalizations that would indeed insult anyone with half a brain.
However, both halves of my brain show me to be a truely misguided individual with the penchance of going against any side that unbalances the equasion.
My party affliation? Chaotic Neutral

I won't continue to post as I am now a converted chaotic neutral. I do want to say, I do find my statement on poverty to be un-justifiably written. For this assumptive statement, I apologize Brad. I never thought of it as it appears now that I read it, and it has served to detract from my larger point because of it. I should have said Kerry has no idea about the poor any more than Bush, or left it out entirely. I just did not want my reply to insinuate I was a Democrat, but rather, that I was challenging Brad's historical perception. The blog was provocative and brought me into it, so I guess it worked and I've said my two cents worth. Thanks for the read and catch you on another blog.

Promise this is actually my last post, but my questions were rhetorical in nature.

Power to the chaotic netural!..Or not..

Brad, what makes the 54/46 split in favor of the Republicans is electorally based. The 80/20 split is predicated on a fuzzy definition of government dependence — do you include government workers as well — or are we talking about welfare, single mothers, patients of Abortion clinics, those in the armed service, children in Head Start, those who get free school lunches, college students on food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, teachers’ union lobbyists, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, cops on the beat, and congress’ Cadillac health plans?

Wahkonta, strange, isn’t it? — that there are still so many Americans who have to take a bus to work and expending hours just to get to a low-paying job below “living wages.” However, I take issue with your view on Kerry who, as you know, was just another grunt in Nam. Granted he’s wealthy — even forgetting the Heinz fortune — but that doesn’t preclude his being for the downtrodden. I trust, that Kennedy had something to do with Kerry’s liberal thinking yet Kennedy, too, has plenty of dough. I understand where you’re coming from as Shawn Hannity says if these damn Democrats are so against the tax-cuts why don’t they return it?


Please don’t shortchange yourself; your input is more than two cents.

Jeblackstar, You did a great job on your laundry list of “How many days...” to alert the blogger to the obvious that the self also benefits.


Lunaticus, you hit the nail on the head — ouch! — we are prone to “exaggerated connotations and generalizations” because politics requisite is half a brain.

Reaction to Blogger's "Republican's Freed the Slaves..."
Granted that Woodrow Wilson turned a blind eye to the South were he to win election, he is no more a racist than Lyndon Johnson who did turn a good eye, which led to the fracture of the solid south for the Democratic Party. Woodrow Wilson capitalized on the Republican split between the liberal wing and the conservatives leading to Teddy Roosevelt’s third party based on “New Nationalism” — a strong central government steeped in social legislation — which ironically later became the battle cry for the New Deal. But the notorious Brownsville incident of 1906 charging black soldiers with killing one white man. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Roosevelt discharged all 167 soldiers without honor — hardly the sentiment of a man sympathetic to blacks in the south. Not until 1972 was Roosevelt’s ruling overturned.


Still, Wardell is correct that the Republicans before and after the Civil War were the champions of the blacks. Theodore Roosevelt, and following, Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were in the main pre-occupied with war, foreign affairs and corporate corruption to concern themselves over egregious behavior in the south.


Even FDR could not concern himself with the ills of the south because he needed a solid south to embody a mandate for economic change to end the Depression. Truman edged into the south by acknowledging equal rights for the black man in the armed service and almost cost him the election. It took the great liberal Republican Earl Warren as Chief Justice to reject the separate but equal clause in Brown v. Board of Education, declaring unconstitutional the separation of public-school children according to race.


This eventually led to Nixon’s notorious “southern strategy” that was actually originated by Wilson and FDR, but in a far less sophisticated south. The Republicans at the time never realized their traditional identity would be in jeopardy, for by then the south was changing as an increasing number of whites from the north settled in and was absorbed by the revival of the southern gentry. So, too, was the white trash no longer trashy thanks to Democratic legislation. As a result, the south had, in the end, won the Civil War by converting the cosmopolitan liberal wing of the Republican Party to endorse the provincialism of modern confederates still grudgingly adamant toward centralized governance.


It is a bit of a stretch to lump all northern Democrats with the statement: “90% of the African Americans side with the party that literally fought to the death to keep them enslaved.” Moreover, interpreting this to suggest that modern Democrats abandoned white power for, I suppose, black [“downtrodden’] in order to produce a slave mentality for those who are thankful for the party’s assistance to make something of themselves is another stretch of the blogger’s logic, or as blogger Wahkonta Anathema would say, using the “broad brush.” The fact is the Democrats learned from sensitive liberals of old on both sides to forge a more caring government by recognizing the insidious fact that uncontrollable, deregulated laissez-faire is as old as the hills and can no longer be tolerated in modernity where so many millions are hurting from profiteers lobbying in behalf of insensitive oligarchies. Blogger Jeblackstar commented that in today’s terms Lincoln would be a Democrat.


Contrary to Wardell’s implication that Republicans are the freedom party that does not subject its followers to enslavement because it champions enlightened citizens who can figure out for themselves how best to make a living, the truth is that it is rare that an average Joe can make the grade in an interdependent society that is under threat of eroding opportunity for the sake of the grasping few.


Without a strong, but sensitive sentinel of governing, we have, as an illustration, a hike of 30% in Wall Street broker bonuses in contrast to 0.5% increase in the hourly wage, and, thanks to Bush’s tax-cuts, high-end sales increase, such as Tiffany at 16%, dwarfing Wal-mart’s 3.9%. The trickle down pipe is clogged. It is the Republicans who have made a 180◦ turn.


    

Steven, but it doesn't require thel full use of the brain? Does the nation know we've got halfwits in the most important offices of our governments?! *gasp* WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?...I knew I shouldn't have went to the bathroom during the action scene.

Luna, you're right: to be neutral you have to be split down the middle, but you can alos split half a brain, too, you know effecting greater chaos.

From stevendedalus [I sign this because I think Brad has changed me to oops! ]

I read your original post, Brad, but didn't have time to read any other comments.

I feel as if you are either just extremely partisan and want to find anything to make Republican mean good, or either you just don't know history. Maybe its something else entirely, but I disagree with a great deal of what you said based on fact - not just my opinion. Mind you I'm going by the original post showing your opinions, and nothing else.

Fact #1: The Democratic party has always been considerably more factionalized then the Republicans. In 1860, the party convention officially split into two camps - Northern Democrats and Stephen Douglas; then the Southern "Dixiecrats" split off with Breckenridge.

Of course you had the new liberal Republicans - which at that time they were liberal.

And then John Bell ran as well in 1860.

The fact is, Stephen Douglas and the Democrats believed in popular sovereignty - a compromise. Breckenridge and the Southern Dixiecrats were absolutely racist idiots. Republicans were the radical new progressives out to banish all forms of slavery in America at this time.


Over time, things changed. FDR was hardly a Dixiecrat, he was a northern liberal Democrat. Woodrow Wilson, growing up in Virginia, was more of a mix then anything.

But by the time 1960 rolled around, the Democrats clearly put forth their progressive image. With FDR and the New Deal in the past, JFK and LBJ built on this. LBJ - being from Texas - was ironically a fairly progressive guy. He allowed for civil rights to pass in 1964, and he knew it would transform the party and the nation's politics for decades to come.

It was the Democrats which passed and enacted Civil Rights on the Federal level in the 60's, with some Republican support. Dixiecrats and conservative Republicans voted against Civil Rights. Progressive Democrats AND Republicans voted in congress to allow it to pass; but the Dems had control at this time.

What happened thereafter? All the old south Dixiecrats quickly turned into Republicans. Strom Thurmond changed parties, and became Republican during this. So did virtually every other southern Dixiecrat.

So which party of today has the old south in it? Ironically - its the Republicans. The Republicans haven't been liberal since 1860 if you ask me...

So the entire basis of your post has no merit if you really do believe Republicans are the party of progressives and the Democrats are hte party of racists.

The fact is - both parties have a lot of backwards social hicks in them. The Dems happen to have fewer in 2004, though. And that's a fact.

By the way, your idea that the government keeps people down and Democrats have made slaves out of these people are ludicrous.

The living conditions of this nation have been enhanced so greatly through the New Deal and Great Society programs, it cannot be understated how GOOD this has been overall for the nation. Has there been massive wastes and misuses? Sure - everything needs reform and fixing from time to time. But overall, the good that has been done through these true revolutionary American leaders has been tremendous.

I think you can disagree in a civil manner without being off the wall and reversing the entire argument back to calling those who legitimately see a role for gov't in economics and social justice as the slave-holders of modern day.

That is just ludicrious, at best. Brad - the fact is - if you actually understood history and respected it, and you were actually alive during the depression, you'd been begging for the government to do something yourself. When you can't even feed yourself, something has to be done. Government has a legitimate role. And the reason why we've not had an economic depression since the actual real depression of the 30's is because of these government programs keeping that from happening.

Its not called slavery, its called common sense if you ask me.

I was watching a "American Experience" program the other night on PBS called "Reconstruction-The Second Civil War".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reconstruction/index.html
It stated that 6 days after Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant, President Lincoln (Republican) was assassinated. His vice president, Southern Democrat Andrew Johnson, becomes president. The show was very clear in telling the truth about the Republican party being completely responsible for the 14th Amendment, the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the Supplemental Freedman's Bureau Bill. It clearly explained how the Democrat party called themselves "the party of the white man". It explained how both the President (Southern Democrat Andrew Johnson) and the Democratic party fought tooth and nail against any civil rights for black men. It was shockingly accurate and stated that the President vetoed the 14th Amendment, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the Supplemental Freedman's Bureau Bill. All of these were designed to extend protection to Southern blacks. The Republican controlled congress overrode the president's vetoes making them law. I agree completely with your article. I still for the life of me can not figure out WHY roughly 90% of blacks vote for the party that wanted them to remain slaves. Republicans have fought for them, not Democrats. They are hypocrats.

The republican party has long been majority dominated by White Men. I have no problem with White Men, being one myself. While it was a "republican" who freed the slaves, going off of current political definitions of the parties, Lincoln would have been a democrat.

Very unlikely. First of all, Republicans are the ones who favor a color blind society. That is the view that most closely matches Lincoln's.

Democrats were the party of white supremacy for a good century after the Civil war. It was only during Johnson's administration that the tide really turned. Most people forget that while Johnson passed the 1965 Civil Rights Act, it passed because of Republicans over the objections of Democrats. 

Anyone who has seriously studied the politcal history of the United States knows that it has always been the Republicans who have delivered more rights for minorities. Which is kind of like real life, conservatives tend to be the ones who actually DO constructive things rather than bitching pointlessly about things.

Let's look at the score card show we?

Republicans supported over Democratic objections:

[X] Fighting against the Fugitive Slave Law
[X] Freeing the slaves
[X] Giving blacks the right to vote
[X] First black Congressman
[X] Integrating White House Staff (undone by President Wilson btw)
[X] Opposing Jim Crowe Laws
[X] Opposing Poll "taxes"
[X] Sending in Federal Marshals to investigate Lynching
[X] Passing the 1965 Civil Rights Act (signed by a Democrat - LBJ in the same way that Clinton passed welfare reform)

And on the Democratic side they've got...Reverse discrimination in the form of affirmative action. And what is the reasoning behind Affirmative Action? Because Democrats don't think blacks are good enough to be able to get jobs or into colleges on their own merit. So in other words, Democrats really haven't changed that much, they still look down on their fellow Americans. 

 

This is a silly historical discussion since the views of both parties in the current age do not match those views. As an avid watcher of the West Wing, I'm reminded of a quote from one of the episodes, "If all the democrats switched to the Republican Party and voted to change the platform, boom, everything would change."

And that's more or less what happened.

Cheers

integration of the military under truman is conspicuously absent.