Why I Am Not A Republican

Note: This is an extremely long post. However, it is a very abbreviated attempt to explain myself. It could be a book! In an attempt to simplify, I have placed division lines in places that I believe to be good break points to facilitate possible multi-session readings.

______________________________

"If the REPUBLICANS lose their little war, they go back home with their pockets lined with their war profits. I we lose the war, we lose everything."

I don’t know if that quote is completely accurate or not – I did it straight from memory – but it is close enough. Any idea who said that and under what circumstances? Read on.

I came to a finalization the other day. This has been building in me for quite some time. I have finally come to the point where I can say, without any hesitation whatsoever, that I am NOT a Republican.

That may come as quite a shock to many around me. "What, you’re a um… Dem… Demo….. Democrat????!!!!" The answer to that is yes and no. (ok, really mostly ‘no’!) Throughout the history of these United States, at certain times and places, what is today the Democratic Party has actually represented what I do indeed stand for. However, the Democratic Party of today does not even come close to representing what I believe. Yes, in many ways today’s Democratic Party is even more evil than today’s Republican Party. Yes, at times and places and amongst certain individual politicians, the Republican Party sometimes appears to approximate my beliefs. However, the party as a whole, and this almost infallibly affects each individual politician within the party, is so corrupted as to be viewed in my opinion as evil, and a vote for a Republican is almost never a vote for the good, but a vote for the lesser of two huge evils. However, my view of the Republican Party as repulsive is not based on it being a good political party that has slipped away slowly and become bad. No, the Republican Party was evil from its inception. The Republican Party is actually (and this may stun many today) THE party of big government in the United States.

I think I can summarize the two parties this way. The Democratic Party was a very good party that over the course of several decades, and now even a couple of centuries, has morphed into a very bad party. The Republican Party was a very bad party that over the course of about one hundred and fifty years has not changed a whole lot. About the only change in the Republicans which gives them some air of goodness, came from the 1960s through the 1980s. Between Lyndon Johnson’s Great Scam Programs and Barry Goldwater’s anti-communism, through Reagan’s optimism, some of the last limited government and pro-morality folks finally ditched the Democrats and joined with the Republicans. Unfortunately, in the almost thirty years since Reagan, they have really accomplished very little. Overall, they are still a minority within the Republican Party. They, to the Republican Party itself, are like the African Americans to the Democratic Party. – that is, they are a near guaranteed block of votes that the party itself can step all over.

To fully understand where I am coming from, you have to have a little knowledge of U.S. History. Going all the way back to the late colonial days, through the Declaration of Independence, the years under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and throughout the first several decades of the American Nation, there were basically two views of government. The one view is that government should be limited and decentralized. The other is that government should be powerful and centralized. What follows below is really about a ten volume ten thousand page history of the United States compressed into a few pages. It is therefore, very grossly oversimplified maybe even to the point of being inaccurate at times. However, I hope the accuracy is enough to make the points I try to make.

Without going into so much detail, we can see the two competing philosophies of government during the early years of the Constitutional Republic. One side, the Federalists believed in powerful centralalized government. The central government should have broad and deep powers to do all sorts of things. However, the constitution only specifically gave them certain limited and enumerated powers. These leaders however, had a way around this limitation. It was called "broad construction". The constitution could be looked at and studied, they believed, then inferences can be drawn and powers derived for the government from those inferences. One example should suffice.

The Federalists desired a National Bank. However, the Constitution is silent about such a charter. The Federalists, though, would look at what the constitution does say. It says that the Central Government can coin money and regulate its value, it can tax, it has a treasury through which it pays its bills, etc. Given all these things and others for which a National Bank would be a natural need, and given that the Constitution does not specifically deny the Federal Government the right to charter a national bank, the Federalists drew the conclusion that a national bank was an acceptable wielding of Central government powers. This is called "Broad Construction." They read and interpreted the Constitution broadly, not narrowly.

The other side believed in more limited constitutional powers. These people were invariably called "anti-federalists" but as a political party grew from them it was known first as the Republican Party - a party which has over the passing couple of centuries has morphed into today’s Democratic Party. That’s right, kids, our modern democratic party has at its roots a belief in limited, decentralized, constitutional government! On the question of a national bank, they would have simply responded that the constitution, as it stood, gave absolutely no authority to the central government to charter a national bank. End of story. This is called "Strict Construction."

Leaders of the broad construction federalists included probably most notably Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The most prominent early member of the anti-federalist republicans was Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, James Madison started on the federalist side, even writing several of the famous "Federalist Papers," but fairly early on moved more in the direction of Jefferson and the Republicans.

In the early years of the 19th century, the Federalists as a party dried up and went away. Their most effective leader was Hamilton who lost his life in a duel. Their other effective leader was Adams who had a one-term presidency and was not hugely popular or successful as a president. Most of the prominent federalists were New Englanders, while most of the prominent Republicans were from the Middle Colonies, most notably Virginia. The Federalists Party became almost a regional party rather than a national party. The Republicans (which began to be called the Jeffersonian Republicans, or the Democratic-Republicans) were far more of a national party and therefore, they held the White House for several terms. Jefferson was followed by Madison who was followed by Monroe. All of these were Virginia Democrat-Republicans. They were followed by John Quincy Adams who, as the son of John Adams was in fact a northeasterner, but probably had a political bent somewhere in between the two sides. He was followed by the southerner Andrew Jackson. By this time, the party had more or less taken on the name "Democratic" and was in fact trying to place itself as primarily a ‘party of the people’ – one of those platitudes that sound good but is in fact meaningless.

So, by the 1820s the Federalist Party was dead and buried and what was called the Republican Party had somewhat evolved into what was now called the Democratic Party. However, certainly among many democrats, strict construction along with limited, decentralized government was still a motivating factor. If you held to this belief, this was your party. The broad construction, powerful central government beast kept raising its head, however. Most notably during the next couple of decades this was within what was known as the "Whig Party," taking its name from the English party system.

The Whigs also, over time, while obtaining varying levels of power including the White House, eventually became marginalized much like the Federalists.

So, by the 1850s, the original party of Jefferson had become the Democratic Party. It held many factions, including those who believed in limited central government based on a strict construction of the Constitution. There were other more ‘moderate’ wings within the Democratic Party also, who believed in somewhat more power to be wielded on behalf of ‘the people.’ There were also numerous small factions of special interests groups, many of whom were somewhat radical (such as radical abolitionists) who did not have a major party to rely on. The big business powers were only partially empowered in the Democratic Party, but were not numerous enough to have a party of their own that could yield any notable power.
________________________________________________________________________________

There were other things going on during the middle decades of the 19th Century – trends and events that really deserve deep discussion but will only be briefly mentioned here.
The nation began moving westward. This had many effects. The eastern seaboard had always been the seat of power – especially economically. As things evolved, this was changing. The centers of trade and commerce had been Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, etc. However, as the nation moved inland, the Mississippi River provided the best mode of transporting goods to port, or receiving goods from other places and distributing them. This meant New Orleans would appear to be the natural economic/trade center of the country. However, the old money powers of the Northeast could not sit idly by and watch this happen. Much of the nineteenth century political and economic history centers on this natural movement west and south, and the fighting of it from the northeastern political/economic machines. An example would be that in order to get goods from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, (just a few hundred miles across one state) it was actually cheaper to place it on a cargo boat, go along the Ohio River to the Mississippi River all the way to New Orleans, enter the Gulf of Mexico, sail around the tip of Florida, up the Atlantic Coast all the way to Philly than to ship it overland a few hundred miles. It is clear that the south, the Mississippi River and its tributaries, and especially New Orleans would prosper under these conditions. The northern money powers intended to fight such a transfer of economic power by many means.

The powers that existed in the Northeast intended to fight this trend by the building of roads, canals, railroads, etc. using central government aid. That is, all the peoples of the nation were to be taxed in some form, then that money used on internal improvements which were specifically designed to help one section or a few sections of the nation (most especially, the northeast) at the expense of others. Many would question the constitutionality of such moves.

Also related to the economic activities of the north, the north intended to use protective tariffs and other measures that would benefit them at the expense of the south. The economic interests of the north and the south were very different, as was their interests in international trade. Northern politicians backed by northern business interests attempted to manage the government in such a way as to benefit the northern business interest. However, the south had able minded politicians who fought this tooth and nail and often staved off at least some of these measures. Consider:

I. The south grew many crops well that could not be grown well to any great extent in other parts of the country (i.e. cotton, rice, indigo)

II. The south had a huge market for these agricultural raw materials in England. Therefore, the south could sell these to England, and buy from England many finished products such as clothing, metal goods, etc. As a result, there was much trade between the South and England and other European nations

III. The north also produced many of the same finished products as England, and therefore was in competition with them on the world market

• To aid the North (and note it was at the expense of the south) Congress tried repeatedly to pass protective tariffs on imported goods. That is, a good coming in from England would now have a huge tax on it. This raised the price of that good in this nation. That lowered the incentive of the south to trade with England and increased the south’s dependence on the north.
• Two easily seen results of this would be that England would therefore increase its tariffs, thereby lowering their incentive to by goods from the US, partiularly the south. And the North could also raise its price on goods sold to the south and still be cheaper than goods the south would buy from England after the tariff.
• So, in sum, free trade between the southern states and England is hampered. The economy in the south is hurt both from the aspect of selling its products, as well as the aspect of purchasing needed products from elsewhere. The north gets an unearned economic boost (at least on paper) at their expense.
• This situation looks eerily similar to the situation the colonies faced in the 1760s and 1770s.
  Again, much of the political/economic history of the mid 19th century is wrapped up in this struggle. Southern Democratic Politicians were able to stave off much of this activity, but it was a continuous struggle.

Slavery and Anti-slavery

During the original constitutional convention the slave trade was a sticking point. The constitution put off a final vote on this issue until 1808. In 1808 they voted to stop the slave trade. What is not widely known is that many of the states had already done so on a state level, including most of the southern states. Virginia, in fact, was the first, or at least one of the first, states to stop the slave trade.

In spite of the above, slavery as a system had taken firm root in the southern states. There are innumerable reasons for this that can not be discussed in this post. However, it was not all simply a matter of their being a bunch of backwards racists pigs, nor greedy rich planters. (No doubt there were some of each, but this does not begin to explain the deep roots of slavery in the south)

Anti slavery movements were abundant in both north and south. While there were without a doubt exceptions to the rule, many southerners, even slave owners, did not like the system of slavery that existed. It was one of those things which had developed gradually over a couple of centuries and was deeply imbedded in the culture and economic system. Many people, again even slave owners themselves, wanted to find a way out. However, it is not as simple as that. It is very easy with our twenty-first century eyes to just say they should have stopped it – period. Free all the slaves and go on. But this is a near impossibility. But,

• There were some, no doubt, in both the north and the south, both slave owners and non, who desired to bring an end to the system of slavery. Some may have had some ideas, others were unsure. But all would have agreed that it was a goal to be reached, but that it may take time – years, even generations.
• No doubt there were some, both north and south, both slave owners and non, who really did not care one way or the other.
• No doubt there were some, both north and south, both slave owners and non, who actually desired the continuation, even deepening of the slave system.
• There were some, mostly northerners, who were known as ‘radical abolitionists’. They desired the immediate freeing of all the slaves and were also banging the drums of war to get it. They had no plan whatsoever with what to do with the slaves. The radical abolitionists – mostly northern, mostly religiously liberal Unitarians, had no plan with what to do with the slaves, and certainly did not want them coming their way. They just wanted to end the institution of slavery.

Religious Landscape Changing

The religious landscape of the nation was also changing. The northeast had been the center of Puritanism in the past. However, for a variety of reasons all too deep to delve into here, the north had become far more liberal religiously as well as socially and culturally. Deism, Unitarianism, and Transcendentalism permeated northern society, not to mention various streams of socialism and even atheism. This is not at all to say that there was no Biblical Christianity to be seen in the North, only that it was less pervasive than earlier eras and religious liberalism or atheism was far more widespread than before. In addition to the changing religious landscape of the North,

• The western frontier had a multifaceted religious tenor. The frontier was exposed a great deal to traveling Methodist ministers, Methodist influenced Baptist ministers, and other ‘revivalists’ types. The result was a lot of emotionalism with major ‘spiritual’ upheavals. However, there was often little depth, very few actual changed lives. Little corporate life. In short, shallow, emotional, non-communal religion.
• The South, while also greatly influenced by the new found religious revivalists tendencies, was also being influenced by the old Puritanism which had been so prevalent in the northeast during the early colonial years. That is, while the rest of the nation was in one way or another moving away from traditional biblical Christianity, the South was moving more and more in the direction of the traditional, Puritan religion.
  ______________________________________________
  

One trend that can be noted in all of this was that many of the various factions in the north were feverishly pursuing a common end – namely the destruction of Southern Culture.
Northern business interests were threatened by a strong south capable of producing agriculture, trading, and obtaining finished goods for themselves without dependence on the north. They were also fearful of the South itself becoming an international trade and commerce center.
The mostly northern, mostly religiously liberal radical abolitionists wanted an immediate and total end of slavery (not that they had a solution to posit for the aftermath). Also, the religiously liberal north were embarrased by the ‘backwards’ religiously conservative south.

It is therefore not the least bit surprising to learn that wealthy northern business interests financed the radical abolitionists, even in their sometimes terroristic, activities. All of these groups, the northern business interests, the radical abolitionists, and the otherwise religious liberals all desired the destruction of the South and a remaking of it in their image. If this sounds outlandish, crazy, kooky, all I can say is that there is a multitude of primary source evidence to support this claim.

In all this, the west was divided and dividing. Much of the tensions that finally brought about the War Between the States involved how the newly added western states would be aligned politically, socially, economically, commercially, slavery-wise, etc.

Now, the Republican Party was born in this climate. The party started in Michigan in 1854 and spread across the north within a few short years. It was made up of the remnant of Whigs (strong central government, broad constructionists), northern business/economic interests, former Free Soil Party members, disillusioned democrats, radical abolitionists, and others. Almost all of these were devoted to one extent or the other, to the crushing of Southern Culture. After some level of success in the intervening years, by 1860 the Republicans had a viable presidential candidate in Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was and is an interesting and intriguing, even enigmatic figure. The one thing nearly all historians agree on, though, is that Lincoln’s primary interest was in preserving the Union whole. That is, Lincoln was first and foremost a Unionist. Lincoln, interestingly, had served as an attorney for large northern businesses. He had also served in the House of Representatives. On the one hand, he would have stated himself to be personally against slavery (as most people, north and south, were to some degree). However, two things need to be mentioned in conjunction with this anti-slavery stand of Lincoln’s.

First, his pro-union stance far outweighed any anti-slavery sentiment he may have held. He is famous for saying that if he could preserve the union while freeing the slaves, he would; if he could preserve the union without freeing any of the slaves, he would; if he could preserve the union while freeing some slaves and leaving others in slavery, he would. In short, any feelings of anti-slavery were, according to his own statements entirely subordinate to his desire to maintain the union. Also, preserving the union was in the interest of the North. The north did not want the south separated from the union, it only wanted it to conform to the north’s vision of the union.

Secondly, in what would be shocking to many of today’s Lincoln admirers, he hardly had beliefs that would coincide with 21st century racial equality. There are many quotes which space does not permit that would almost seem to have come from a 1950s Georgia Klansman that were in fact spoken by Old Abe himself. He did not see the Africans as equal to the whites. He did not believe the Africans and the whites could live together peacefully. Therefore, just like the radical abolitionist, he may have wanted to end slavery, but he had not real workable plan to do so.
At any rate, Lincoln’s pro-northern business, pro-union interests provided him with one large block of votes. His vocalized anti-slavery statements gave him the support of many of the abolitionists and other religious liberals. The fact that he was not outwardly radical on any of these things gave him some support from the many moderates of the north. He posed a strong candidacy indeed.

Here, however, is where the south made perhaps it first major political blunder.

The Democratic nominee for president was not a southerner, but was a midwestern moderate named Stephen Douglas. Southerners were not satisfied with this. They then broke free from the national Democratic Party, formed the Southern Democratic Party and nominated Henry Breckenridge from Kentucky for President.

The election then was interesting. Voters in the south split between Douglas and Breckenrigde. Notherners split between Lincoln and Douglas. When the dust settled, Lincoln won the electoral college, but did not have a popular majority. What is even more amazing is that in the states that would soon secede and form the confederacy, Lincoln received not even one vote. Not one single vote by any person in several states. Let that sink in for a minute. In all those states below the Mason Dixon line combined, Lincoln garnered something like one or two percent of the vote. Yet he would be president for the whole nation. Think about that. What if today a president was elected when an entire section of the country basically gave him/her no votes whatsoever. This was just too much. A president backed by those who sought to destroy the south, not receiving ANY votes in the south, yet elected as their president.

Here is where perhaps, the south made a second blunder. Very quickly after the election of Lincoln, southern states started seceding. Even Alexander Stephens, who would become the Confederate Vice President in time, and therefore was most certainly not against the southern cause, strongly encouraged waiting it out. Secession was legal (and still is today despite any statements to the contrary you may hear). But it may not have been wise – at least not yet. However, the states left the union – right or wrong, wise or ignorant.

As a result of their secession, The Republicans then waged war on the south – just as the south had feared they would. Understand that, kids. In the view of the South, they sought independence (like the colonies from the crown some 80 years previously), but the REPUBLICANS initiated and waged war against them. It was seen in the south as a REPUBLICAN war. A war whose purpose was the total annihilation of the south and its culture. Again, if this sounds like hyperbole, just study a bit of history from the time. Check out some first hand, primary source comments.

The quote at the beginning of this post was spoken by Confederate General Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson.

So, the birth and early growth of the Republican Party was not based on any idea of true reform. It was not based on any ideal of limited government, or low taxes, or pro-family or pro-small business, or individual rights, or personal liberty, or right to life, or any other high sounding, conservative, Christian ideal. It was based on preserving the union in the form desired by the moneyed elite of the northeast through the destruction of the southern culture and the bringing of it under the heavy hand of northern power brokers. THERE is your Republican Party.

You can have it!

Note how in this party the supposedly ‘consevative’ or ‘right wing’ business interests were hand in hand with the ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ or ‘left wing’ causes such as abolition with the end result being more centralized power. This is always the way it is. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are really meaningless. Expansion of centralized power is always the goal of the big business/big government cabal. The War Between the States, and the aftermath of reconstruction effectively marked the end of truly limited constitutional government in this nation. It has been downhill ever since.

The directions of the two parties since then has in some ways taken many turns and in some ways remained basically the same. The Democratic Party has continued to try to portray itself as a populist ‘party of the people.’ This has effectively meant it has moved ever more the ‘left’ in order to appease this or that special interest group, or in the name of ‘fighting poverty’ or other such high sounding ideals. The Republican Party has tried to at one and the same time posit itself as ‘pro-business’ as well as ‘progressive.’ This has lead to a hodge-podge of policy from both parties. However, the one thing that is certain is that tracing the last 140 years, it has not seemed to matter much which party controlled the White House or either House of Congress. The direction of travel has remained the same. Big government has gotten bigger. Big business interests continue to be protected. Big government/big business together in both parties with some outward disguised differences in party.

For this reason, I can not consider myself a Republican. One hundred and forty seven years ago, the Republicans began running roughshod over the homes of my ancestors (none of whom owned slaves). They and their partners in the other party have continued to centralize more and more power in their hands thereby more and more limiting my freedom.

Depending on the situation in any given election cycle, I could possibly vote for a Republican if the differences seemed to be great enough. However, in general, as I see it, there really ain’t much difference in the two. I will likely vote third party or not vote at all. And no matter what, I will not call myself a Republican!
_________________________