Yes, By All Means, Let’s Ban the Democrat(ic) Party

You may have recently read a piece similar to this by Jeffrey Lord, or likewise, an older piece by Daniel Greenfield. However, given recent events, some details not discussed by Mr. Lord and Mr. Greenfield and the fact that I spent some time on the history of the Democrat Party in The Miracle and Magnificence of America, the idea of banning the party of slavery deserves more attention.

With the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, the Republican Party controlled the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate, and the presidency. Sensing the beginning of the end to the institution of slavery in the U.S., Democrat-controlled states began to secede from the Union. South Carolina was first in December of 1860. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia followed in January of 1861. Tellingly, in their secession declarations, among the list of grievances, virtually every southern state referenced the election of Lincoln and the threat he and his party presented to the institution of slavery.

South Carolina declared,

[A]n increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding [i.e., northern] states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. . . . [T]hey have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery. . . . They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes [through the Underground Railroad]. . . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States [Abraham Lincoln] whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

Alabama’s secession document read:

[T]he election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America by a sectional party [the Republican Party], avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [slavery] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama…is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security…

As the fifth state to secede, Georgia also cited the election of Lincoln and the Republicans:

A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the federal government has been committed [the republicans] will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia [who voted to secede]. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican Party under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

The Confederate States of America was formed at the Montgomery Convention in February of 1861. For the southern states—and anyone else in the world paying attention—the agenda of the newly formed (and electorally victorious) Republican Party was clear. From the creation of the Republican Party, every party platform that mentioned slavery forcefully denounced it. After the infamous Dred Scott ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1857, the subsequent Republican platform strongly condemned the ruling and reaffirmed the right of Congress to ban slavery in the territories. Tellingly, the corresponding Democrat platform praised the Dred Scott ruling and condemned all efforts to end slavery in the U.S.

The Republican Party platform of 1856 read,

That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

On the other hand, every Democrat Party platform from 1840 to 1860—six consecutive—was in support of slavery. Likewise, as Mr. Lord notes, “The Democratic Party opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.” If left-wing social justice “warriors” want to tear down the symbols of slavery in America, none is bigger than the Democrat Party.

But there are other reasons for tearing down the party of slavery. Slavery was a terrible sin that nearly destroyed the United States of America. Likewise, tens of millions of Americans today selfishly cling to immoral behaviors that threaten to destroy our nation. As was the case with slavery, and again because of foolish judges who are blind to the laws of the Law Giver, many of these wicked behaviors have the protection of U.S. Law. And just as was the case in the 18th century, only one major political party today—the Democrat Party—has given political cover and endorsement to the immorality that plagues America.

In a moral and just society, the killing of the unborn and the war on marriage and the family would cease. (Along with tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, why isn’t the left seeking to expunge any and all references to the racist eugenics apologist—who addressed the KKK and spoke fondly of Stalinist Russia—Margaret Sanger?) In a moral and just society, there would be no debate about who is a man and who is a woman. In a moral and just society, if a man refused to work, politicians—in an effort to buy votes—would not rush to feed him.

In a moral and just society, instead of clamoring for the removal of any reference to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the like, protestors should demand that rainbow-covered crosswalks that glorify sexual sin be painted over (or at least be adorned with Scripture to denote the rainbow’s true meaning). In a moral and just society, virtually everything the modern left stands for—from abortion to the welfare state, wealth redistribution, sexual perversions, gender lies, the destruction of marriage, and so on—would be banned.

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

The Confederate Flag and the Liberal Mob

I’ve lived in northeast Georgia all of my life. My congressional district is the Georgia ninth. According to the Cook Partisan Voting Index, my district is the third most conservative in the nation. I’m nearly 46 years-old, and the northeast part of Georgia has been very conservative for a long time. Of course, I would have it no other way.

That being said, I’ve never been much of a fan of the Confederate battle flag. I’ve never purchased an item—t-shirt, bumper sticker, car tag, and so on—emblazoned with the Confederate battle flag. And as far as I can remember, I’ve never displayed it at any time or at any place on my personal property.

I recall once during my later teenage years, or perhaps my early twenties, while an undergraduate student, and while working on the landscaping crew at an upscale area golf course, I vocally expressed my disdain for the Confederate battle flag. It was not unusual to see pickup trucks around my small town cruising around with the Confederate battle flag proudly—and oftentimes largely—displayed. I saw such actions as rather foolishly “redneckish” and said so. From that day on, my fellow landscapers affectionately dubbed me as “Reb.”

Though I’ve grown to embrace much of my “redneck” heritage, the Confederate battle flag is a symbol that I still largely reject. It doesn’t offend me when I see it, and I don’t immediately label those who choose to display it as “racists.” However, I know enough history, and I’ve seen enough real racism to understand what the Confederate battle flag means to those who see it as a symbol of such.

Make no mistake about it, as author and Christian apologist Jim Denison recently pointed out, “It is a fact of Civil War history that the flag was originally associated with the institution of chattel slavery. And it is a fact of recent history that the flag continues to signify racism for many.” Denison cites James M. Coski, the historian at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Virginia and an author of a “definitive work on the Confederate flag.”

As Denison’s piece notes, “According to Coski, ‘African-American slavery was inextricably intertwined with white southerners’ defense of their own constitutional liberties and with nearly every other facet of southern life.’ He concludes: ‘Descendants of the Confederates are not wrong to believe that the flag symbolized defense of constitutional liberties and resistance to invasion by military forces determined to crush an experiment in nationhood. But they are wrong to believe that this interpretation of the flag's meaning can be separated from the defense of slavery.’”

And as historian David Barton notes, it is revisionist history to conclude that the South did not go to war over slavery. He concludes that, “the South’s desire to preserve slavery was indisputably the driving reason for the formation of the Confederacy.” (The link is well worth the read.)

Nevertheless, as Selwyn Duke has already deftly informed us, Dylann Roof’s wicked acts should have nothing to do with whether or not an individual, a business, or a municipality decides to display, peddle, or hoist the Confederate battle flag. The reasons for making such a decision have been around for decades. To suddenly decide now to cast the Confederate battle flag upon the trash heap of history is to submit to the liberal mob. And submitting to a liberal mob only creates more incentive for the next mob action.

As Ann Coulter has gone into great detail about, whether Myth-making (“this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries”), contradictory thinking (“Muslims don’t need to apologize for the Tsarnaevs.” – “White America must answer for the Charleston church massacre.”) creating messiahs, turning those who disagree with you into opponents, simple-mindedness, inability to grasp logic, or speaking in slogans (“Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!”), the liberal mob is always on the look-out for the next opportunity to further its agenda.

Because liberalism generally rejects the notion of absolute truth, and because with liberalism it’s always about “the narrative,” the next opportunity could be almost anything: the ten-dollar bill, the Jefferson memorial, the use of “boys and girls”, the use of “wife”, and so on. Who knows where it will stop? Will we get another redefinition of marriage? Another redefinition of gender (along with another letter in the absurd LGBTQQIAP lexicon)? Will the American flag soon be a target?

As I’ve noted before, because their moral bar is so low and easily adjusted to whatever is politically popular, liberals today generally have an easier time “playing politics” than conservatives—especially Christian conservatives. In the not so distant past, many liberals had little problem embracing the Confederacy, along with its symbols, as long as it was a useful means to a political end. As has been well documented now, the Confederate battle flag is the legacy of democrats, not republicans.

This is not about democrats and republicans. This is about what is right and wrong. And relativists who operate by mob rule simply cannot be trusted with such.

(See this piece on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com