|
Rebels In The Republican Ranks
Walter D. Kennedy
Southern conservatives awoke the 15th of
July 2005 to read the following headline in many local papers "G.O.P.
Apologies to NAACP for Southern Strategy." For many Southerners this
was somewhat of a rude awaking that hot Southern July morning. Once again,
Southerners are instructed to assume their assigned position upon the
"stool of everlasting repentance." As America's formal whipping
boy, the South is once again brought into the public eye and given its
30 lashes-this time by our good friends in the National Republican Party.
The irony of those words "G.O.P. Apologies to NAACP for Southern
Strategy" has not been over looked by many neo-Confederates. The
South, the region that has made the G.O.P. a majority party, must once
again stand before the nation, hat in hand, and accept being held up before
the world and proclaimed to be the bastion of all that is evil in America.
Southerners routinely vote overwhelmingly for conservative candidates;
yet, it is the South that is chastised by the G.O.P. in order to curry
favor from a group that routinely votes 95% AGAINST conservative candidates.
Today, more than anyone in the United States, we the people of the South
have made the Republican Party the majority party in America. Yet how
is the Republican Party repaying the South? Let us face the issue squarely;
the South is a pariah, a black sheep, the redheaded stepchild, or more
correctly, the bastard spurious issue of the Republican Party. Ironic,
yes but the closely held attitude about the South by the National Republican
Party does not come as a surprise to those who have been active in the
defense of Southern Rights and true American Constitutional government.
Southerners instinctively understand that
left of center, big government, and socialist elements in America naturally
dislike the South. Why would they not hate the South? After all, the South
is the section of America that has from the beginning of the republic
stood in the way of the growth of big government. Big governments, whether
in the form of Hitler's nazis, Stalin's communists or America's left of
center politicians, all place their ultimate faith in government
as the agent of change within a nation. Add to this list of big government
advocates, America's neo-conservative (neo-con) establishment. Although
dubbed "right of center," America's neo-conservatives, i.e.,
conservative Republican ideologues, have one thing in common with their
socialist allies-their willingness to use the power of big government
to advance their policies and/or power. To a neo-con big government is
only evil if it is in the hands of their political enemies. As long as
conservatives, i.e., neo-cons, are holding the reigns of power, big government
is not so bad or so their logic goes. A prime example of this neo-con
philosophy at work can be seen in the writings of Mr. Neo-Con himself,
Newt Gingrich. In his book To Renew America (which should have
been sub-titled By Trashing the South), Gingrich opens his tome
with a blistering attack on Southern racism.
The first premise of most neo-cons such
as Gingrich is that the South is responsible for all of America's race
problems because it is the South who enslaved Blacks, segregated Blacks
and of course lynched and otherwise mistreated Black Americans. The left
of center elements in America routinely asserts that Southerners left
no stone unturned to "keep the Blackman poverty ridden, ignorant,
and otherwise abused." By not stating their opposition to these lies,
neo-cons such as Mr. Gingich have given their tacit approval of this liberal
message. In his book Mr. Gingrich states that Southern Democrats established
segregation.1 This "blame the South" mentality is rather
common in the left of center socialist (liberal) brigades and their neo-conservative
comrades. But as is so often the case when dealing with facts about issues
of race in America, the truth is stranger than accepted myths. Let's enlighten
our neo-con friends with a little history lesson. Segregation did not
begin in the South but rather it began in New England! Also, it should
be noted that it was not Southern Democrats who made segregation the law
of the land but rather, it was the Federal Supreme Court. In its
1898 Plessy v. Ferguson decision the United States Supreme Court
codified racial segregation laws (the so-called Jim Crow laws) as the
law of the land. This decision was based upon an 1845 law in Massachusetts
(not Mississippi) that mandated separate schools for White and Black children
in the Northern State of Massachusetts. The Federal Supreme Court Judge
who wrote the majority opinion for this case was a native of the Northern
State of Michigan (not Mississippi). The only judge who voted against
the majority of Federal Supreme Court Judges establishing Jim Crow laws
in the United States was a Southerner, the only Southerner on the Supreme
Court at that time. Oh look, another bit of irony! Massachusetts and the
Federal Supreme Court is responsible for legalizing segregation in the
United States; the only Federal Judge to vote against legalizing segregation
in the United States was from the South, those voting for segregation
were from the North; yet, according to the left of center crowd, neo-cons,
and Mr. Gingrich, the South is at fault for establishing segregation in
America.
Yankees find it very convenient having the
South around to blame for all race related problems that face our nation.
Yankees have been given a pass on their history of race discrimination
while they waste no time in pointing out the problems down South. Those
accustomed to denigrating the South seldom mention the positive contributions
made by Black and White Southerners. During the days of segregation when
few African-Americans exercised the right of voting, more schools and
colleges were created and funded by white voters of the South than any
nation on earth. In the past 120 years nowhere in the world outside of
the United States have Black people had a higher income, more personal
wealth, higher literacy rate, longer life expectancy or lower infant mortality
rate than in the South. While denigrating the South, Mr. Gingrich could
find no place in his book to praise the South for its positive contributions
to African-Americans. Contrast the difference between the words of the
G.O.P. apologizing to the NAACP for their so-called Southern strategy
to the words of Booker T. Washington praising the South for its efforts
in assisting African-Americans. In his book Up From Slavery Washington
describes how while visiting President McKinley in Atlanta, Georgia, a
white man and former slave-holder was asked by the President if he thought
it would be wise for the President to visit the Negro school at Tuskegee.
Booker T. Washington states the ex-slaveholder answered the President
and said it was the proper thing to do. This and many other such acts
of kindness between Black and White Southerners are detailed in Washington's
book, more proof of positive acts of kindness and good will existing between
the races in the South. Unfortunately, these acts are seldom reported.
In October of 1957, the Shreveport Times
printed and editorial written by the Bureau of Public Relations at Grambling
College, a Black College in Grambling, Louisiana. In this editorial the
Black author explains how at a recent football game a very large crowd
of Black people were present. The crowd was well dressed, drove fine cars,
and deported themselves with grace. All of this while many outside the
South were reporting only negatively on life in the South for Black people.
The editorial states: "No one who looked at the thousands of Negroes…would
say that the Southern Negro was held in bondage, a mishandled, unkempt,
poverty-stricken, and ignorant lot….It is unfortunate that this side
of Negro life in…the South generally goes unnoticed by the northern
press, agitators, political rabble-rousers, and other who would put the
good people, white and Negro, in a bad light." Both liberal Democrats
and neo-conservative Republicans delight in putting the "white and
Negro [in the South] in a bad light."
Liberals and neo-cons delight in demeaning
the South for its social standards during the days when segregation was
the law of the land. According to them, the African-American led a precarious
life before the victory of the civil rights movement in the late 60's.
Yet, when we look at the life of African-Americans in 1950 as compared
to 2005, we find some remarkable differences. In 1950 70% of African-American
children were born in two parent homes, today less than 30% are born in
two parent homes; in 1950 sexually transmitted disease (S.T.D.'s) were
infrequently seen in teenage African-Americans, today S.T.D.'s are epidemic
within this group; today Black on Black murder is so common that if it
is reported at all it will be on the back pages of the newspaper. In the
past ten years in the United States (some forty years after the civil
rights victory) more Black people died at the hands of fellow Blacks than
where lynched in the South in the past 125 years! This is not intended
to be a defense of segregation but rather it is an attempt to show the
hypocrisy of the far left and neo-cons as they deal with the issue of
race and the South.
Yes, anti-liberty laws (Jim Crow laws) were
common in America for far to long. But Southerners did not force these
laws upon the United States. In 1950 New York City was just as segregated
as Montgomery, Alabama. So-called Jim Crow laws were part of the legal
codes of 26 States in the Union at the time when only 48 States were in
the Union-yet, it is the South that is blamed for these laws. One hundred
and twenty years before the birth of Martin Luther King and 176 years
before the modern civil rights movement, a founding father of this nation
and a Southerner, St. George Tucker of Virginia, wrote an article declaring
the need to end both slavery and laws that discriminated against people
of color. Oh, yet another irony! While Massachusetts holds the dubious
honor of being the first American colony that was engaged in the African
slave-trade and the first American colony that passed a law recognizing
a master's right in the property of his slaves; it was the South that
first demanded an end to the African slave-trade and a Southerner who
first demanded equal rights for African-Americans3. But what about
the neo-con's (AKA, Republicans) assertion that only the Federal government
can protect the rights of a minority.
What a slap in the face neo-cons give African-Americans
when they assert that only the Federal government can guarantee the rights
of African-Americans. Every minority group in American has had to overcome
discrimination and each has done so without the guiding hand of big government.
Long before signs stating, "No Negroes need apply," signs would
read, "No Irish need apply." A complete list of such people
"discriminated" against in America would include almost the
entire American population. Red, Yellow, Black and White, all in their
turn have had to face down discrimination. Other than African-Americans,
no group of Americans has had to have the Federal government "guarantee"
their rights. The question then is, "How do people over come discrimination?"
Here is how Booker T. Washington suggest this be done, "The great
human law that in the end recognizes and rewards merit is everlasting
and universal….No race that has anything to contribute to the markets
of the world is long in any degree ostracized."4 Hard work
and merit, not un-Constitutional Federal rules, edicts and regulations
were Booker T. Washington's suggestion for ending discrimination. It was
merit and not Federal bayonets that broke down the color barrier in baseball;
Motown was the capital of Black music in the early 1960's, yet Southern
White children were just as likely to listen, sing, and buy Motown music
as any Northern child, it was merit not Federal bayonets that broke down
that color barrier; when Black musician Charlie Pride burst upon the Country
Music charts, it was merit and not Federal bayonets that broke the color
barrier. The growing economic power of America's African-America community,
coupled with hard work and merit, would have done a much better job of
ending Jim Crow laws in American than empowering the Federal government
with fraudulent powers-powers that would eventually be used to speed the
growth of big government.
As long as the civil rights movement followed
Booker T. Washington's model of self improvement and merit real progress
was possible. This was done without creating an oppressive big government
overlord interfering with the daily activity of Americans. Since the rise
of the modern civil rights movement, Booker T. Washington's plan of self
improvement has been abandon and replaced by W.E.B. DuBois' Marxist theory
of class struggle. DuBois, an admirer of communism, redefined the civil
rights struggle to embrace the concept of struggle between the oppressed
and the oppressors. Now, White people are no longer seen as Booker T.
Washington describes them, i.e., partners in the improvement of Black
Americans but now they are redefined as the oppressor. Listen to the language
of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson and you will hear this communist mantra
with each speech. How different it would have been for all Americans if
this nation had followed the advice of St. George Tucker and Booker T.
Washington. State's Rights would have been saved and big government would
have died on the vine. But the left of center politicians desired the
death of State's Rights.
In his book Mr. Gingrich even explains why
he sometimes favors big government. According to Gingrich only the Federal
government could protect the rights of minorities, therefore, it is only
logical that the Federal government exercise the power necessary to protect
minorities2. Of course my first question for big government neo-cons
is, "If the Federal government is our guardian then who shall
guard the guards?" According to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
in their famous Kentucky and Virginia Resolves of '98, it is the people
at the local governmental level, i.e., the States, who retain the final
say on how they are to be governed. Furthermore, according to these gentlemen
the Federal government can only legally exercise the power it has been
granted. Any exercise of power that has not been granted to the Federal
government via the Constitution is a usurpation of the reserved rights
of the people of the States and therefore not Constitutional. Even high
federalists such as Alexander Hamilton noted that in cases where the Federal
government went beyond its delegated rights its action would be non-binding
upon the States of the Union5. Mr. Gingrich and his neo-con cohorts
all pay lip service to the concept of State's Rights. But how can State's
Rights exist if the Federal government is allowed to usurp any of the
reserved rights of the people of the States? What Mr. Gingrich and his
neo-con fellow travelers call State's Rights is at best an effeminate
shadow of real State's Rights and at worst, nothing more than State
privileges. A State privilege is a right that the Federal government has
determined that the people at the local level could at present exercise.
In other words big government is the one who determines every issue, not
the people at the local level. What socialist would find anything wrong
with this formula? Hitler did not like the concept of local control (State's
Rights), he believed in big government; Stalin did not like people at
the local level governing themselves (State's Rights), he wanted to rule
from Moscow; likewise, Lincoln, American socialists, and neo-cons don't
like State's Rights; they want to be in control of the government.
It is clear that left of center groups as
well as neo-cons do not like real State's Rights. Southerners and
other traditional conservatives view State's Rights as the indispensable
safe guard for American liberty. What is it about State's Rights that
is so important to the maintenance of true American liberty?
The grant of power from the States to the
Federal government in the Constitution is well defined and specific. Any
power, authority, or right which is not delegated to the Federal government
or denied to the States is retained by the people of the sovereign States.
According to Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison, one of those rights is the
right and duty of the States to judge for themselves if the Federal government
is overstepping its authority. In relation to the idea that the Federal
government will be the guardian of our rights, the question was asked
earlier "who shall guard the guards?" The author of the Declaration
of Independence (Jefferson) and the father of the Constitution (Madison)
give us a clear and unequivocal answer-the States. State's Rights is the
great check upon the Federal government to ensure that it does not over
step its delegated authority, thus becoming a tyrannical government. The
right to judge the Constitutionality of an act of the Federal government
has not been denied to the States nor has it been delegated to the Federal
government; therefore it belongs to the people of the States. Likewise,
the right of nullification and/or secession has not been denied to the
States nor have they been delegated to the Federal government; therefore
these rights belong to the people of the States. Real State's Rights
is the only way to check the uncontrolled growth of the Federal government.
If real State's Rights as just described were active today, does
anyone believe that the Federal government would have a 17 trillion dollar
debt or control every act or action of citizens in every State? Everything
from how much water goes down your toilet to how much money the IRS will
allow you to keep comes under the control of the gargantuan Federal government6.
Neo conservatives who dutifully pay lip service to the concept of State's
Rights while denying the right of nullification and/or secession have
successfully castrated real State's Rights. Without real
State's Rights the Federal government continues to grow-when will it end?
It will not end until the chains that are now being forged are placed
securely upon us!
Yes, the growth of big government has been
slowed from time to time. Nevertheless, even under the leadership of Ronald
Regan the size and power of big government continued to grow-why? Why,
even when the Congress and the office of the President are in Republican
hands, and a majority of Supreme Court justices are Republican appointees,
does this malignant growth of big government continue? The reason for
this malignant growth is because the natural check upon the growth of
the Federal government was surrendered at Appomattox-don't hold your breath
waiting for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich or any neo-con
to tell America the truth about Appomattox.
Is the present Republican Party serving
the needs of those who love true American liberty? If we define true American
liberty as Jefferson and Madison did in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves
then it is obvious that the present National Republican Party is not the
party of liberty but the party of big government-surely, a lesser version
of a big government party than the Democrats but at bottom, it still believes
that Washington rules-no different than Lincoln (no irony there). If Washington
rules then the republic of republics as established by our forefathers
is dead. Our dearest interests and rights are held in the hands of those
we cannot control, rather, they control us. What would Patrick Henry think
of such a government?
When Republican National Committee Chairman
Ken Mehlman apologized to the NAACP, he stated he was proud to be part
of the party of "Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Fredrick
Douglas." He went on to state that he looked forward to "rebuilding
the historic relationship between the NAACP and the Republican Party."
If this is the kind of party National Republicans are planning, where
does that leave the South? Lincoln and Fredrick Douglas are advocates
of big government activism not limited government. Where is this activism
headed? Will this activism lead down the road of civil rights for gays,
pedophiles, and practitioners of bestiality? Once the brakes have been
removed from government there is no telling how far and how fast it will
go. The G.O.P. and its neo-cons have no more use for the brakes of real
State's Rights than their liberal cousins. It is time for traditional
Southern conservatives to reconsider our options-perhaps both within the
G.O.P. and within the Union-its time to consider some radical alternatives.
1 Newt Gingrich, To Renew America (Harper Collins Publishers,
New York, NY: 1995 ) p. 21.
2 The Shreveport Times, October 22, 1957, p6-A
3 Walter D. Kennedy, Myths of American Slavery (Pelican Publishing
Co., Gretna, La: 2003) pp.23-30;41-46.
4 Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery (1901, The Classics of
Liberty Library, New York, NY: 1993) pp. 223, 318.
5 Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 33
6 James R. Kennedy, Reclaiming Liberty (Pelican Publishing Co.,
Gretna, La., 2005) p 167.
|