A small, ok maybe very small, part of my childhood/teen years has now passed. On 9/1Jerry Reed passed away at 71. He was part of my life for various reasons.
I remember seeing him as a kid on television alot, and remember some of his big hits from the early 1970s. These were mostly 'novelty' type songs such as "Amos Moses," "When You're Hot, You're Hot," and so forth.
I specifically remember my mother, who was a smoker, buying his record "Another Puff," - an excessively silly rant about his trying to quit smoking.
As the 70s wore on, Reed became something of a movie actor, most notably on the "Smokey and the Bandit" Series with Burt Reynolds and Jackie Gleason. EVERYONE of my age group saw that movie. It is one of those that a lot of people can quote from line for line. And of course, the theme song "East Bound and Down" was a big hit for Reed.
As the eighties rolled in, he continued to have a few hits, including the No. 1 hit novelty song "She Got the Goldmine, I Got the Shaft."
Another memory of mine is on weekend mornings watching outdoor shows - notably Bill Dance. That theme song from Bill Dance, "Today is Mine" - that was Reed.
Finally, in the early 1990s, Mrs. Philosopher and I took a trip to the Dallas - Ft. Worth area to visit some friends. We went to Billy Bob's one night to see the ol' Snowman in concert. We were all fairly sure that he was about the drunkest guy in Billy Bob's that night. He came on stage holding a bottle of beer. As the crowd cheered, he walked up to the mic and, looking at his bottle mumbled "What...in....the....hayull....is....."Lone....Star....Beer?"
He spent about ten minutes or more rambling before he started playing music. When he did play, he was actually pretty good, but he talked waaaaayyyy too much. We have all kidded since then that the Jerry Reed Concert was the best we've ever been to.
However, in all this what is lost, in fact unknown to many people, is that Jerry Reed was a phenominal talent. He was one of the most incredible guitarists to ever grace the stage. He was something of a protege of Chet Atkins. In my opinion, as a guitarist, Chet Atkins wouldn't hold a candle to him. Amidst all the B grade acting, all the silly, senseless hit songs, lied a man of rare, all too rare, musical ability.
Jerry wrote and recorded "Guitar Man" - which became a huge hit for Elvis. He also wrote tons of songs that Chet Atkins himself actually recorded. Go to Youtube, do a search. Look for "The Claw", "Jerry's Breakdown" or others.
I have saved you the trouble and placed a few representative cuts here. Some of the sillies, along with some of the unbelievable playing. Their not labeled, so you just click and see what you get.
I last heard Reed on the Rick and Bubba Show about a year or so ago. His previously wild, fast talking was now slow and deliberate. He sadly told how he could not longer play the guitar due to arthritis. He talked about how he worked with some sort of group recognizing and honoring our war veterens. He hilariously spoke about "Smokey", Burt Reynolds, Jackie gleason, etc. Overall, though, he seemed contented, blessed, fairly serious, and reverent. It was good to hear.
RIP Snowman!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOGiW-y-Vhs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ1Ggt5f28o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8KBhnebwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN8dP4CoFaw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04RJyFCg7ks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcoeGjrL-r8
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
A Hero Falls
How many of you knew that Alexandr Solzhenitsen (sp?) recently passed away?
How many of you know who Alexandr Solzhenitsen was?
While he was an often hard to deal with old man, one whom I no doubt would have had at least a few major differences of opinion with, he was in the end one of a tiny handful of men that I would consider to be a hero.
Solzhenitsen spent about eight years in the horrid world of the Russian Prison Camps during the 1940s and 1950s. Unlike many millions of others, he lived to tell (and write!) about it. He was released during the first supposed Communist reform era of Russia. Decades before the mid to late 80s reforms, the mid 1950s reforms of Kruchev occured. This was the first hint of "Yeah, we're a bunch of totalitarians who can not support ourselves, so we'll act like we are reforming in order to get continued Western support" that continued for decades.
After his release, Solzhenitsen eventually wrote and published (1962 I think) a small novel entitled "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisavich." This was a fictional account of one day in the life of a Soviet Political prisoner in the Gulags of Stalin. This work eventually won Solzhenitsen a Nobel Prize for Literature.
As is always the case with tyrants, eventually the communists tired of Solzhenitsen's continued critiques of their ways. They eventually exiled him. He wound up in the US - Vermont in particular. However, rather than embracing the capitalism of the west, Solzhentisen criticized it, its decadence, its consumerism, its un-reverent religion of status, just as harshly as he criticized the Soviet tyrants.
This marginalized him and his writings. The extreme liberals of the west hated him because he was so staunchly opposed to the religion of statism. The 'conservatives' (mostly modern neo-con Republicans) could not tout him too loudly because he so staunchly opposed the 'religion' of capitalism and consumerism.
However, between the release of "One Day", his exile to the US, and his eventual return to Russia in the late eighties or early nineties, Solzenhitsen published many important works. Most notably, in my opinion, were the novel Cancer Ward and the massive three volume work about life in the prison camps entitled The Gulag Archipelego.
These are literary works based on his own biography. He had himself spent time in a Russian Hospital in the Cancer ward. Gulag was a semi-fictional, semi-factual series of tales from the prison camps. These works, it was said, held a mirror up to Soviet Society. Exactly how much they influenced the eventual fall of communism is up for debate, and likely unknowable. However, they did contribute. This adds to his hero status in my book.
However his hero status actually is based not on his works alone, important though they are. To me they are based on his resiliiance, and the steadfastness of his Faith. (Even though, he as a Russian Orthodox Christian, and me as a Reformed Christian would no doubt argue over the Faith itself) Perhaps there is no more moving sentence in anything that I have ever read than one, near the end of Volume II of Gulag, where, after spending literally hundreds of pages documenting the horrors of the place, could say "Thank you prison, for having been in my life." That is, Solzhenitsen saw clearly that all things are governed by God for his ultimate purpose. This includes the tragedy of spending eight years in a place that could only be described as 'hell on earth.' Sozhentisen recognized he would not be who he was, nor who God intended him to be, without going through this seemingly meaningless madness. Faith puts meaning into both joy and suffering. In fact, it puts joy into suffering.
We would all do well to have have cuch faith!
How many of you know who Alexandr Solzhenitsen was?
While he was an often hard to deal with old man, one whom I no doubt would have had at least a few major differences of opinion with, he was in the end one of a tiny handful of men that I would consider to be a hero.
Solzhenitsen spent about eight years in the horrid world of the Russian Prison Camps during the 1940s and 1950s. Unlike many millions of others, he lived to tell (and write!) about it. He was released during the first supposed Communist reform era of Russia. Decades before the mid to late 80s reforms, the mid 1950s reforms of Kruchev occured. This was the first hint of "Yeah, we're a bunch of totalitarians who can not support ourselves, so we'll act like we are reforming in order to get continued Western support" that continued for decades.
After his release, Solzhenitsen eventually wrote and published (1962 I think) a small novel entitled "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisavich." This was a fictional account of one day in the life of a Soviet Political prisoner in the Gulags of Stalin. This work eventually won Solzhenitsen a Nobel Prize for Literature.
As is always the case with tyrants, eventually the communists tired of Solzhenitsen's continued critiques of their ways. They eventually exiled him. He wound up in the US - Vermont in particular. However, rather than embracing the capitalism of the west, Solzhentisen criticized it, its decadence, its consumerism, its un-reverent religion of status, just as harshly as he criticized the Soviet tyrants.
This marginalized him and his writings. The extreme liberals of the west hated him because he was so staunchly opposed to the religion of statism. The 'conservatives' (mostly modern neo-con Republicans) could not tout him too loudly because he so staunchly opposed the 'religion' of capitalism and consumerism.
However, between the release of "One Day", his exile to the US, and his eventual return to Russia in the late eighties or early nineties, Solzenhitsen published many important works. Most notably, in my opinion, were the novel Cancer Ward and the massive three volume work about life in the prison camps entitled The Gulag Archipelego.
These are literary works based on his own biography. He had himself spent time in a Russian Hospital in the Cancer ward. Gulag was a semi-fictional, semi-factual series of tales from the prison camps. These works, it was said, held a mirror up to Soviet Society. Exactly how much they influenced the eventual fall of communism is up for debate, and likely unknowable. However, they did contribute. This adds to his hero status in my book.
However his hero status actually is based not on his works alone, important though they are. To me they are based on his resiliiance, and the steadfastness of his Faith. (Even though, he as a Russian Orthodox Christian, and me as a Reformed Christian would no doubt argue over the Faith itself) Perhaps there is no more moving sentence in anything that I have ever read than one, near the end of Volume II of Gulag, where, after spending literally hundreds of pages documenting the horrors of the place, could say "Thank you prison, for having been in my life." That is, Solzhenitsen saw clearly that all things are governed by God for his ultimate purpose. This includes the tragedy of spending eight years in a place that could only be described as 'hell on earth.' Sozhentisen recognized he would not be who he was, nor who God intended him to be, without going through this seemingly meaningless madness. Faith puts meaning into both joy and suffering. In fact, it puts joy into suffering.
We would all do well to have have cuch faith!
This election
Even in the face of the post below about definitely not being a Republican, I have to say that I am extremely torn in this election cycle. Here are a few things I can say about it:
First, I know for certain I do not want Barrack Obama as President. In case anyone is looking to make a racial issue out of this let me say emphatically that the amount of pigmentation in anyone's skin has absolutely exactly zero influence on the way I vote. It's not the color of the skin, it is the content of the character, as someone once said.
It may be said that I do not know Obama, so can't judge his character. However, I do know some things about him that give me insight into his character.
To begin with he is 'pro-choice' in regard to abortion - which translated means he has no desire to legally hamper the murder of the most innocent victims imaginable. That says alot. In addition to his stance on the issue of abortion, he is overall probably the most liberal (in terms of social issues and big government philosophy) person in the Senate - at least based on his short voting record and stated positions. Also, he has known ties with the very corrupt Chicago Politcal Machine. This machine is basically mafia-esque (I think I just made up a word)! That says alot. Another thing that says alot about a candidate is who he/she chooses as a running mate.
Obama, who has stated he is 'new kind of politican,' that he is not 'Old-Washington' (and doesn't every single candidate try to distance themselves from the very city they are trying to get into?) chose for his running mate a multi-termed Senator who is the very epitome of 'Old Washington.'
Biden is also pro-abortion, is a long time liberal (again in terms of social issues and big government philosphies). He also has a record of plagerising other politicians in his speeches, has made racial slurs, and fairly recently has stated that Obama was not qualified to be president. But, don't worry. Throw that out the window now. Barrack is now qualified because he has chosen Biden as a running mate.
So, to start with, there is no way I could ever vote for Obama, and I hate the thought that I would contribute in any way to his election.
Secondly, though, I am not exactly thrilled at the prospect of a McCain Presidency. McCain is the perfect example of why I am not a Republican. His 'Maverick' status is a joke. He is in many ways indistinguishable from the Democrats. He has increased corruption in the name of fighting it. Where perhaps he differs from traditional Republicanism is that he supposedly has fought big business interests (esp. Tobacco and Oil) However, in our current political climate, all such things as these need to be considered far more deeply than the surface - something we can not do here.
McCain, to me, proved himself totally unlikable during the Republican Primary debates. His closest competitor was Mitt Romney. Now, I do not much care for Romney either, but the way McCain was toward him in the debates that I saw almost made me lean his way. McCain was, in my opinion, so immature in the way that he attacked Romney, that it made it unthinkable to me that the man could ever be President. Note, I have no problem with him 'attacking' an opponent. It's just the way he did it that bothered me so. It was VERY immature.
However, I must admit, that I am at least a tad intrigued by McCain's choice of running mates. From a practical standpoint it was simply brilliant. There is no other word for it.
For one thing, she is female. This automatically buys him millions of female votes. (Not implying that that anywhere near all women everywhere would vote for him based on this, but many women and moderate men could be swayed by the prospect of a female running mate - esp for a seventy something year old president. This could easily lead to a female presidency in the fairly near term future) In short - many 'moderate' fence sitters for whom a female candidacy might be important may be swayed.
In addition to this, she is a conservative, pro-life, Christian. She even gave birth to her fifth child in her forties, knowing he had Downs Syndrome. There are many millions of conservative Christian pro-life fence sitters out there who may be swayed to vote based on this (Including the Groaning Philosher!)
Add to that she is a gun toting, hunting, life member of the NRA. This will no doubt energize at least a few million gun lovers. Images of her holding a large weapon may excite both strong minded females as well as gun loving males and females.
It is hard to imagine that McCain could have picked a better running mate - her recent revelations about her daughter notwithstanding. The point above is, that there are various groups who had millions of fence sitters in this election. Palin may have just knocked them off the fence and into the McCain Camp. BRILLIANT!!!
So, I know for sure that I do not like Obama, Biden, nor do I much care for McCain. However, I am deeply intrigued by McCain's running mate. Both McCain and his running mate are pro-life, the other two are anti-life. This is nearing the point of swaying me toward McCain. However.....
I am still a fervent believer in the total corruption of both major parties. I believe, from a political standpoint, a third party must emerge. The only two possibilities from where I sit are the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.
In this cycle, I think I have decided against a vote for the Libertarian Party. I think Bob Barr is an old line Republican who ran out of opportunities there so joined the Libertarians. I do not believe he has a record of solid, limited government philosophy.
I am really impressed with the Constituion Party Candidate, and for the most part, its platform. There is one major exception to this, though (there may be others, but this is the one I am aware of now). The exception is that for some inexplicable reason, the CP, like many paleo-con groups, falls for the economically disastrous idea of mercantilism. This shows forth most clearly in their support of the protective tarriff. (see the Republican post below for at least a brief introduction to the dangers of the protective tarriff.)
Other than this point, though, the CP offers a solid, limited government, pro-constitution, pro-life, platform. On the whole, I could much more comfortably support this party, its candidate, and his running mate, more than the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Libertarians. However, and this is big, he has zero chance of winning.
This is the constant dilemma for the principled voter. Do I vote for the principle, knowing there is no chance, or do I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two major party evils? Right now, I do not know. I know which way I am leaning and may write about it in the future, but I am not totally decided yet.
Any thoughts?
J
First, I know for certain I do not want Barrack Obama as President. In case anyone is looking to make a racial issue out of this let me say emphatically that the amount of pigmentation in anyone's skin has absolutely exactly zero influence on the way I vote. It's not the color of the skin, it is the content of the character, as someone once said.
It may be said that I do not know Obama, so can't judge his character. However, I do know some things about him that give me insight into his character.
To begin with he is 'pro-choice' in regard to abortion - which translated means he has no desire to legally hamper the murder of the most innocent victims imaginable. That says alot. In addition to his stance on the issue of abortion, he is overall probably the most liberal (in terms of social issues and big government philosophy) person in the Senate - at least based on his short voting record and stated positions. Also, he has known ties with the very corrupt Chicago Politcal Machine. This machine is basically mafia-esque (I think I just made up a word)! That says alot. Another thing that says alot about a candidate is who he/she chooses as a running mate.
Obama, who has stated he is 'new kind of politican,' that he is not 'Old-Washington' (and doesn't every single candidate try to distance themselves from the very city they are trying to get into?) chose for his running mate a multi-termed Senator who is the very epitome of 'Old Washington.'
Biden is also pro-abortion, is a long time liberal (again in terms of social issues and big government philosphies). He also has a record of plagerising other politicians in his speeches, has made racial slurs, and fairly recently has stated that Obama was not qualified to be president. But, don't worry. Throw that out the window now. Barrack is now qualified because he has chosen Biden as a running mate.
So, to start with, there is no way I could ever vote for Obama, and I hate the thought that I would contribute in any way to his election.
Secondly, though, I am not exactly thrilled at the prospect of a McCain Presidency. McCain is the perfect example of why I am not a Republican. His 'Maverick' status is a joke. He is in many ways indistinguishable from the Democrats. He has increased corruption in the name of fighting it. Where perhaps he differs from traditional Republicanism is that he supposedly has fought big business interests (esp. Tobacco and Oil) However, in our current political climate, all such things as these need to be considered far more deeply than the surface - something we can not do here.
McCain, to me, proved himself totally unlikable during the Republican Primary debates. His closest competitor was Mitt Romney. Now, I do not much care for Romney either, but the way McCain was toward him in the debates that I saw almost made me lean his way. McCain was, in my opinion, so immature in the way that he attacked Romney, that it made it unthinkable to me that the man could ever be President. Note, I have no problem with him 'attacking' an opponent. It's just the way he did it that bothered me so. It was VERY immature.
However, I must admit, that I am at least a tad intrigued by McCain's choice of running mates. From a practical standpoint it was simply brilliant. There is no other word for it.
For one thing, she is female. This automatically buys him millions of female votes. (Not implying that that anywhere near all women everywhere would vote for him based on this, but many women and moderate men could be swayed by the prospect of a female running mate - esp for a seventy something year old president. This could easily lead to a female presidency in the fairly near term future) In short - many 'moderate' fence sitters for whom a female candidacy might be important may be swayed.
In addition to this, she is a conservative, pro-life, Christian. She even gave birth to her fifth child in her forties, knowing he had Downs Syndrome. There are many millions of conservative Christian pro-life fence sitters out there who may be swayed to vote based on this (Including the Groaning Philosher!)
Add to that she is a gun toting, hunting, life member of the NRA. This will no doubt energize at least a few million gun lovers. Images of her holding a large weapon may excite both strong minded females as well as gun loving males and females.
It is hard to imagine that McCain could have picked a better running mate - her recent revelations about her daughter notwithstanding. The point above is, that there are various groups who had millions of fence sitters in this election. Palin may have just knocked them off the fence and into the McCain Camp. BRILLIANT!!!
So, I know for sure that I do not like Obama, Biden, nor do I much care for McCain. However, I am deeply intrigued by McCain's running mate. Both McCain and his running mate are pro-life, the other two are anti-life. This is nearing the point of swaying me toward McCain. However.....
I am still a fervent believer in the total corruption of both major parties. I believe, from a political standpoint, a third party must emerge. The only two possibilities from where I sit are the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party.
In this cycle, I think I have decided against a vote for the Libertarian Party. I think Bob Barr is an old line Republican who ran out of opportunities there so joined the Libertarians. I do not believe he has a record of solid, limited government philosophy.
I am really impressed with the Constituion Party Candidate, and for the most part, its platform. There is one major exception to this, though (there may be others, but this is the one I am aware of now). The exception is that for some inexplicable reason, the CP, like many paleo-con groups, falls for the economically disastrous idea of mercantilism. This shows forth most clearly in their support of the protective tarriff. (see the Republican post below for at least a brief introduction to the dangers of the protective tarriff.)
Other than this point, though, the CP offers a solid, limited government, pro-constitution, pro-life, platform. On the whole, I could much more comfortably support this party, its candidate, and his running mate, more than the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Libertarians. However, and this is big, he has zero chance of winning.
This is the constant dilemma for the principled voter. Do I vote for the principle, knowing there is no chance, or do I hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the two major party evils? Right now, I do not know. I know which way I am leaning and may write about it in the future, but I am not totally decided yet.
Any thoughts?
J
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
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,
______________________________
"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.
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!
_________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
