24 May 2017

The biggest Democratic crybabies ever

In New Orleans and Charlottesville, and at points in between, there's been some hubbub over the past month over the removal of statues of Confederate war heroes. It was the typical caterwauling over the attempted erasure of regional heritage, brought to a hysterical peak in Charlottesville by alt-rightist Richard Spencer, who acted as if removal of the white race was next on the agenda. There's excess on the other side of the question, of course, and there's definitely room to debate whether every important American who owned slaves should be seen as a villain today. However, the removal of Confederate statues should be a moment of relative clarity. Let me put the issue in terms that those protesting the statues' removal might understand. For the sake of argument, let's presume that these protesters are supporters of President Trump, if not registered Republicans. If I'm right, then these people have spent much of the last five months or more calling Democrats crybabies and sore losers because Trump won the presidential election fair and square in the Electoral College. Some people have found it virtually seditious that Democrats in 2017 continue to question the legitimacy of Trump's Presidency or attempt to discredit his election. You've heard the rhetoric on TV or radio and seen it on social media: grow up, get over it, he's your President, etc. If Democratic behavior in 2017 is shameful and despicable, Democratic behavior in 1860 was far worse. Democrats that year were so freaked out over a Republican winning the election, even though they had only themselves to blame because their own party split along sectional lines that year, that several Democratic state governments seceded from the Union and started a war when President Lincoln refused to recognize the legitimacy of their action on such a chickenshit pretense. Let me repeat this: Southern Democrats seceded from the Union and started a war because they were sore losers of a presidential election. They gave Lincoln even less of a chance than today's Democrats are giving Trump, without even the fig leaf of accusations of foreign influence. Instead of marching and sometimes looting, they raised armies and perpetrated wholesale slaughter. And those are the heroes whose statues so many want to defend. This shouldn't be so hard to understand, and let it be noted that it has nothing to do with the presumed feelings of black people or any other demographic group. Republicans (and, presumably, Trump fans) like to link today's Democrats with their party's dark heritage of support for slavery and segregation. They like to say that because Democrats were racist back then, by some convoluted logic they are racists now. Those sort of partisan historic analogies should work both ways. How, then, can anyone who thinks of himself as a patriotic conservative today profess to revere people from 150 years ago who behaved the same way, only worse, as the partisans they currently despise? The answer is all too obvious and has everything to do with the feelings of some white people, as if those matter more when they're hurt than black feelings or any others. Well, let the rebs cry. That usually means we're doing something right.


Anonymous said...

I have to agree. Those who perpetrated the Civil War in defense of amoral policies were nothing more than traitors and, if Lincoln had any objective intellect, they would have been tried as traitors and, when found guilty, executed as traitors. Then there would be no question today as to whether those villains should be considered heroes. Unfortunately, Lincoln allowed his humanity to persevere over good sense.

So because those men were not condemned for their crimes against the United States of America back then, idiots are allowed to celebrate their 'heroism' today. Will the people learn this lesson? Of course not. Because the people lack common sense and any real modicum of intellect.

The same thing is going on right now and, once again, we are saddled with a government riddled with corruption and too weak to take the action necessary to preserve the union. So it is very likely that there will be a second civil war.

Samuel Wilson said...

While Lincoln was known not to desire the execution of Confederate leaders, ultimate blame for not taking punitive action falls on his successor, the southerner Andrew Johnson. Public opinion in the north after Lincoln's assassination would have backed a sweeping purge, but Johnson, who grew up poor, apparently liked the idea of showing mercy to the now-humbled slaveocracy. Of course, many would still have regarded the politicians and generals as martyrs and built a cult around them, absent more sweeping action by the reconstruction regime.