Jim's Mailings

"And the least of these, my brothers"

The Least of These, my Brothers
In order to sort out Politics, some definitions are in order. There are two Political parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. History suggests a large number of third parties, only a few of which we can mention here. But they are bones in a graveyard of lost causes. Mind you, the causes live on, but parties seem to be given only one chance. Some would have you believe there are two parties, the conservatives and the liberals, but we'll take a look at that below. One party, the Federalist, lives on in the person of the Federalist Society. This party of Alexander Hamilton is supposed to have been the party of George Washington and John Adams. One of Hamilton's contributions is the Federalist Papers, which he co-authored with James Madison and John Jay. Their principal cause was suggesting that there be only one political party in this country, and there was, until Thomas Jefferson made the case for a Democrat party, which lives on in much altered form, today.
Efforts to resurrect the Federalists went astray, but in the aftermath, and the unmourned passing of the Anti-Mason Party, the Whig Party was born. I suppose its best representative is Pres. William Henry Harrison, but its gift to America was from its ashes rose the Republican Party. Jefferson's party was officially the Democrat-Republican, but by 1856 it had split into the Northern and Southern branches, but held together enough to elect James Buchanan.
In 1860, fortified with a growing number of Abolitionists, headed by Horace Greeley, the Republican party burst forth in full bloom, electing Abraham Lincoln over a badly split bunch of Democrats with Stephen Douglas (Douglas-Lincoln debates) and John C. Breckinridge (a successor of John C. Calhoun as leaders. In this election, the cause of the abolitionists was ratified when the Southern Democrats rebelled, and forces loyal to them in South Carolina fired upon Ft. Sumpter, and broke open the Civil War. Winning the war enabled the Republicans to hold onto power for enough years for them to become thoroughly corrupted, and other causes could gain adherents, and make an electoral showing. Below, we will discuss the politics of Wendell Phillips, who suggested the most direct route to being elected was to hold onto your basic beliefs, but mention only half or less, so as to not disaffect those who might not want to hold the whole ideology.
As the 20th century dawned both of the two major parties had a divided base, usually one side would get his candidate nominated for president, the other for vice-president. Such was the election of 1900, McKinley of Ohio representing the more conservative wing and Roosevelt of New York the Liberal or Moderate, of the Republicans. Roosevelt showed remarkable energy, persuaded a great deal of reform in the Party, and significant increases in the degree of regulation powers assumed by the Federal Government, in such enactments as the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, and the National Parks, that had been urged by "Teddy" Roosevelt. In the Solid South, following Reconstruction, voters were allowed to return to the booth, but through an oppressive set of laws, most of the freed slaves found that voting was denied to them as a class. In fact, the entire legal system was constructed in a way to deny these unfortunates the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and the proclamations of the Declaration of Independence. A classic case was adjudicated in Plessy vs. Ferguson, where a mulatto was denied permission to public transportation, and in a separate but equal decision, confirmed by the United States Supreme Court. Rights of the minorities were only marginally better in the North, but judicial restrictions were largely absent. Later, in 1912, the Republicans were challenged by Wilson, but also T.R. Roosevelt and his "Bull-Moose" Party, which Wilson won.
In New York, the Democrats and Republicans were challenged by the Liberal Party, which was identified in the 1950's on with Robert "Bob" Wagner, who held a number of offices, including Mayor of New York. In most national races, the Liberals joined the Democrats, and often fielded their own local candidates. Later, in the 50's James Buckley came up with the Conservative Party sort of a offset to the Liberal Party, and was elected U.S. Senator. His brother, William, a one time contestant for Mayor, created the conservative digest, The National Review, filling it with articles from a fiscal conservative viewpoint. In Buckley's case his pronounced Catholic view lent an air to the movement, attracting social conservatives as well. It is supposed that the name Conservative echoed the great P.M. Of England, Benjamin Disrali, but had served to label individuals in both parties, in particular F.D. Roosevelt, who labeled Hoover a Liberal, and ran as a fiscal conservative, before unveiling the "New Deal."
A sensitive issue. The Imperial Powers were suspicious of intellectual movements, especially after the American Revolution and particularly the French Revolution. The sentiment carried along by the revolutionary partisans could infect millions, and threaten the existence of the great powers. In the 1800's writings by Henry David Thoreau, John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx had great appeal, as the ideas suggested the means by which Utopia on Earth could be achieved with what seemed to be, simple methods. In some cases, an accompanying religion was absent, which the Roman Empire had relied on to quell mass discontent since the time of Constantine.
America was not to escape the effect of these ideas, and organization of Labor Unions were one of the first achievements to gain recognition from the American Government, though it was not without some bloodshed. In general, this trend was labeled socialistic, and resembled in some form the Utopias projected by Plato and Jesus Christ, among others, which had failed to develop. But others had been tried, and history is replete with examples, some of which were fairly successful, but not on a mass scale. In Europe, the time was ripe for experimentation, and in almost every country parties arose, some gaining power, and in Russia, the Imperial Tzars were overthrown and a Socialistic government replaced them after considerable bloodshed. In America, tempers were cooled after our great Civil War, and other means were sought to stem the tide of socialism, and largely it was contained by restrictions which did not allow it to grow beyond small groups. One such group, the Communist party was heavily survieled, and given heavy legal barriers in its attempts to organize and gain power. The Socialist party grew after starting in the 19th century, and I have copied a chapter from the book, Pacifist's Progress by Bernard K. Johnpoll. (Quadrangle, 1970) The book highlights the contributions of Norman Thomas, who was a perennial candidate for president on the Socialist Ticket. Many of his views are little different than those of George Fox, the founder of the Quaker Movement some 350 years earlier.
Thomas' and Wilson's failures were principally due to their inability to choose success through compromise, in exchange for dirtying their perfect ideology. But first, a little dialogue that goes on perpetuating the myth that the major parties cannot successfuly govern in a biparitsan cooperative manner. To Quote a successful Sen. Olympia Snowe on the recent Filibuster- Nuclear Option - "It took Comity, Cooperation, and Collaboration." And her Collegue, Sen. Susan Collins "Good Faith, Mutual Respect and Trust." See if you can find it!

12-16-02: News at Home A DIALOGUE
Our thanks to the History News Network
Debate: Was It a Crime to Have Supported the Dixiecrat Party?

History Book Club is a premier source for the finest history books in print. We offer over 500 selections of the finest history books in print, all recommended by our board of professional writers and historians. The greatest advantage to belonging to the History Book Club is the opportunity to get books created exclusively for HBC, books you wont find anywhere else.

If HNN gave an award to the historian who had made the most controversial statement of the month, Norman Ravitch undoubtedly would have to be considered a leading contender for December. Mr. Ravitch, professor of history emeritus at the University of California, Riverside, argued in a recent posting on Conservative net -- a highly respected "daily electronic newsletter" for scholars and researchers -- that Trent Lott "has a right to remember Thurmond's Dixiecrat past. It is part of history. It is not a crime to have been supportive of it. It remains more than doubtful that the black population of America, or the rest of us, have really benefited from integration and civil rights legislation."

Ravitch's statement prompted a vigorous exchange of views, excerpted below:

NORMAN RAVITCH

I hold no particular love for Senator Lott who is a wheeling, dealing
Good Ole Boy whose leadership of the Senate GOP has not been
particularly impressive. But in the present flap about his comments
on Thurmond I have this observation.

The criticism of Lott and demand that he resign, along with the
Confederate Flag controversy in Georgia and South Carolina, all seem
to me to be a liberal attempt to apply political correctness to the
past as well as the present and future.

Lott has a right to remember Thurmond's Dixiecrat past. It is part of
history. It is not a crime to have been supportive of it. It remains
more than doubtful that the black population of America, or the rest
of us, have really benefited from integration and civil rights
legislation.

As for the flag, it is a remembrance of a terrible civil war which was
the worst example of fraternal hatred in history up to that time. All
races and sides need to remember. Keeping the flag helps us to
remember. Political correctness makes us forget.

The Democrats are trying to use these issues to make the GOP the
racist party. So be it. The Democrats ruled for a long time as the
racist party.

RICHARD JENSEN

Mr. Jensen, the editor of Conservativenet, is emeritus professor of history at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

It should be noted that Lott never endorsed segregation, and that Thurmond as governor of SC had a strong reputation for opposing the KKK and lynching. His biographers in fact credit him with ending lynching in South Carolina.

SAM TANENHAUS

Mr. Tanenhaus is the author of Whittaker Chambers: A Biography.

I'm curious to know the historical basis for [Ravitch's belief that "It remains more than doubtful that the black population of America, or the rest of us, have really benefited from integration and civil rights legislation."] Americans--and "the rest of us"--really better off in the days of Jim Crow, poll taxes, whites-only primaries, "literacy" tests? Was Barry Goldwater mistaken to support civil rights legislation in 1957? It's worth remembering that civil rights was deemed by the likes of Acheson and JFK as a critical element of cold war policy in the 1950's and 60's, as a number of recent studies have shown in some detail.

It's quite true that Thurmond's record has been somewhat distorted. He seen in the 1940's as a Southern progressive. But it's a mistake to depict him as a principled states-righter, and opponent of "big government." In fact he endorsed Truman in 1947 and broke with him, and the Democratic Party, only after the Civil Rights Commission issued its report. Thus did Race--or rather, racism--dominate his campaign. A good, undervalued source on the 1948 election--probably the greatest of the century--is Gary Donaldson's Truman Defeats Dewey (University Press of Kentucky, 1999).

MICHAEL KAZIN

Mr. Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and the author of The Populist Persuasion: An American History.

Conservatives have made political gains by attacking busing and affirmative action, but I never expected you all to defend Jim Crow! Perhaps Ravitch and other respondents on this list would like to explain to Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and J.C. Watts that they'd really be better off sweeping up and cooking meals at the White House, the Supreme Court, the Capitol, and the State Department than making policy in such places?

As for Jensen's defense of Thurmond: I'm sure the black citizens of SC were extremely grateful to the governor for ending lynching -- amid a national uproar against the practice. But he still fought to bar them from voting and from enjoying equal opportunities in employment, housing, and education until those damned outside agitators changed the law of the land.

These apologies, even defenses, of Lott's reprehensible statement(s) only underline the fact that conservatives can't be trusted to make distinctions between "political correctness" and moral responsibility.

RICHARD JENSEN

Thurmond was the single most important leader in the South in bringing salaries of black teachers up to the white averages. He also was a vigorous opponent of lynching and the KKK. The question of black voting and housing & employment was not on the table in 1948--Michael is thinking about episodes a decade later.

RALPH LUKER

Mr. Luker, an Atlanta historian, is co-editor of the first two volumes of The Papers of Martin Luther King and a writer for the History News Service.

How sad Norman Ravitch is willing to accept on behalf of the Republican Party the label "racist," an epithet otherwise banned from this venue. Better he should go back to reading National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal or listening to the advice of the Family Research Council, the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism and Jack Kemp -- all of whom seem to think that President Bush wouldn't want the nation to believe that behind the face of an elephant is a dixiecrat jackass.

ABIGAIL THERNSTROM

Ms. Thernstrom is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute in New York, a commissioner on the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Four Republican Appointees on US Commission on Civil Rights issue statement deploring Senator Lott's recent comments:

As Republican appointees to the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, we deplore Senator Trent Lott's December 5, 2002 statement
that if Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948 "we wouldn't
have had all these problems over all these years."

The central issue on which Thurmond ran was support for racial
segregation. Senator Lott thus lends credibility to the view that such
civil rights advances as President Truman's executive order mandating
an end to racial segregation in the U.S. armed forces, the Supreme
Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts
of 1957 and 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were grave
mistakes. Certainly, in 1948, Strom Thurmond opposed all of them.

This is a particularly shameful remark coming from a leader of the
Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, and the party that
supported all of these essential steps forward far more vigorously
than did the Democratic Party, which at the time was the home of
congressional southerners committed to white supremacy.

The civil rights era was a shining moment in American history. We
believe Senator Lott agrees, and invite him to join us in celebrating
the revolutionary change in the status of African Americans that
flowed from a movement in which blacks and whites joined hands to make
a better America.

Abigail Thernstrom
Jennifer C. Braceras
Peter N. Kirsanow
Russell G. Redenbaugh
Commissioners, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

posted by James E. Opfell @ 8:58 PM