The Democrat Slavery/Jim Crow Not Our Business Argument is Back For Portland

Before my wife finally got her negative COVID test back allowing me to return to work (for some reason they didn’t record she was a healthcare worker and her case wasn’t expedited so poof went days of pay for us both) I had an interesting exchange with a fellow concerning what’s going on in Portland Ore where the family of DaWife’s father is from and where I almost moved after honeymooning there (Apparently the best non-move I ever made in my life).

Along with the standard mostly un-poisoned soup arguments about how peaceful most of the protesters who have been rioting for two months are I heard one argument against the Department of Homeland Security Troops being there that did have some resonance (no it wasn’t the “secret police” nonsense that my sons friends are falling for and some democrats are pushing).

This argument is that this is a local matter and in one sense he had a point. The citizens of Portland districts elected their Democrat city counsel that has supported this nonsense, the citizens of Portland as a whole elected their Democrat Mayor who has allowed these riots to take place and handcuffed their Police, the citizens of the Oregon district that includes Portland elected the Democrat congressmen defending this stuff and opposing the feds protecting federal property and the citizens of Oregon as a whole elected the Democrat governor and Democrat senators who have turned a blind eye to the violence, except to attack Federal Agents in general and President Donald Trump in particular for trying to stop it, at least when they go after Federal locations. So they’re getting what they voted for.

In fact Erick Erickson argues Let Portland Burn:

Let the market decision by letting the actions of a free people control their fate.

The President should withdraw from Portland immediately and let the city burn, if it will, or thrive if it will, but it is the choice of the people there.

A President sending in a police force to a city is a dangerous precedent that will be expanded upon even though the United States Constitution lacks a general police power. A city allowed to chose its own fate is a positive precedent from which we can all draw lessons.

Let Portland burn or not, but let it decide without intervention from Washington.

And Jazz Shaw notes:

the people of these cities continue to elect the same group of Democratic hand-wringers year after year no matter how badly conditions on the ground deteriorate. So does this mean that the rest of the nation and the federal government are out of options besides just waiting for the cities to implode?

There’s clearly an argument to be made in favor of such a conclusion, though it’s an ugly thought to contemplate. As Erickson suggests, there must surely come a point where the remaining sane people in Portland and these other cities will look around at the shootings, the rapes, the arson and the looting and come to the conclusion that something isn’t working. This relies on the old adage which holds that a liberal is just a conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet.

Now I must confess that there is some appeal in this. Why waste federal resources to protect people from their own bad decisions? I’ve heard variants of this concerning folks who build in areas that are regularly threatened by Hurricanes or Wildfires. Why should my federal tax dollars be spent to protect these fools from themselves?

But what really funny about this argument I’ve been reading these exact same points, argued by southern supporters of slavery during the 1850 up to the start of the civil war.

As I’ve mentioned before I’ve been reading Hart’s brilliant American History told by Contemporaries during my lunch break, I’m on volume four and have for the last month (not including during quarantine) been reading argument after argument by congressmen, senators, governors writers newspaper and thinkers and ordinary people both defending and opposing slavery and one of the arguments that is constantly being made by the Democrats concerning slavery is that it’s none of the North’s damn business what the south chooses to do about slavery. It’s not a federal issue but an issue for the individual states whose citizens support the institution. Here is one example:

Never, in a single instance, has the South, in any shape or form, interfered with the North in her municipal regulations ; but, on the contrary, has tamely submitted to paying tribute to the support of her manufactures, and the establishment of her commercial greatness; yet, lie the “serpent warmed in the husbandman’s bosom,” she turns upon us and stings us to the heart. If Great Briton or any foreign power, had heaped upon us the long catalog of insult and abuses that the North has, there is not a man in the whole South who would not have long since shouldered his musket, and, if necessary split his heart’s blood to have avenged them. But because we are members of the same political family it is contended we must not quarrel, but suffer all the impositions at their hands that in their fanatical spleen they may choose to heap on us.

That’s the Charleston Mercury circa 1860 which sounds an awful like the Democrats today. But you know who sounds more like them. Democrat President James Buchanan who sat back while the slave states seceded and seized federal property and arsenals:

How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slavery question forever, and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country! They, and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way.

Doesn’t that sound like the whole Pelosi/Media meme of the violence will all go away and the people of Portland will be fine if Trump just ignores what’s going on.

But we don’t have to go back to the 1800’s for these words. We can go back to living memory, 1957, to the floor of the US Senate to hear the arguments of Senator Richard Russell (D-GA) made against the 1957 Civil rights act on the floor of the Senate during the Debates chronicled in Robert Caro’s extraordinary biography of Lyndon Johnson The Years of Lyndon Johnson specifically in volume three Master of the Senate (another set of books I highly recommend four volumes are out vol 5 is yet to come) this exchange from page 965 come immediately to mind:

McNamara said Michigan needed no defense, that his state could handle its affairs without outside interference. “Then why does not the Senator let us do the same?” Russell asked. There was applause from the southern senators seated around him, but he had asked a question, and he was to receive an answer to it. “McNamara,” Doris Fleeson wrote, “roared in the bull voice trained in a thousand union meeting halls: ‘Because you’ve had ninety years and haven’t done it’ “

Now I’ll readily concede that given our current education system and the lack of interest in reading anything but Howard Zinn communist approved history some of these debates and arguments might not be familiar to the current Democrat Leadership like Nancy Pelosi or Democrat Mayors like Ted Wheeler or “Journalists” like Brian Stelter let alone the rank and file leftists/ Democrats posting on facebook or twitter.

But as someone who HAS read this stuff I find it incredibility interesting that the arguments of today’s Democrat left/media are the arguments of the slaveholder and the defenders of Jim Crow and are being made under the banner of Black Lives Matter.

But it makes sense after all the slaveholder and the proponents of Jim Crow also insisted that the way of life they defended was for Black American’s own good. And just as in those days, we see blacks trapped in cities controlled by democrats, beset by crime and drugs with Democrat leaders keeping those who would free them from these plagues out supposedly for their own good.

Ah the Democrats back to their segregationist roots in public once again.

The war on statues may never end

Lincoln and Douglas at Freeport, Illinois

By John Ruberry

While we’re not–yet–at the French Revolution level of destroying then recreating society, the Angry Left is focused on defacing and toppling statues of men deemed racist. Or by having sympathetic politicians remove them, such as what happened last week with Jefferson Davis’ statue at the Kentucky state capitol. So far women in bronze and marble, to my knowledge, have been spared, but one of Illinois’ representatives at National Statuary Hall at the US Capitol just might be inflicted with induced restless legs syndrome. I’ll get to her later.

Monuments of Confederate generals and of course Jefferson Davis have been the hit the hardest by the vandals. But the rage is now world wide. Winston Churchill’s statue at Parliament Square in London had “was a racist” spray painted on its pedestal. There’s an Abraham Lincoln statue there too, Black Lives Matter activists defaced that one. Up in Scotland, a statue of medieval monarch Robert the Bruce, whose views on black people are unknown, had “BLM” and “was a racist king” spray painted on it.

Because I’m from Illinois, I’d like to zoom in on my state. Let’s return to Lincoln. While Honest Abe was always anti-slavery, his views on black people prior to the Civil War would be classified as racist today. Lincoln’s stance on slavery in the 1860 election was to confine it to states where it already existed. By 1863 he was an abolitionist, at least in areas held by Confederate forces. Two years later the Great Emancipator enthusiastically backed the 13th Amendment that finally ended slavery in America. Oh, Lincoln saved the union too. That’s why he is considered the United States’ greatest president by most historians.

Lincoln gained national prominence in 1858 during his campaign for the US Senate against Stephen A. Douglas. Other than his connection to Lincoln, Douglas, “the Little Giant,” is largely forgotten now. His Kansas-Nebraska Act, which eliminated the Missouri Compromise in determining which states would be slave or free, ignited Bleeding Kansas, a brutal warmup to the Civil War. But Douglas was a political dynamo in the 1850s and he was the nominee for president for the northern Democrats in 1860.

Douglas and Lincoln agreed to a series of seven debates throughout Illinois during the 1858 campaign, the famous, or make that formerly famous, Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Late in the 20th century bronze statues of both men were placed at each of those sites.

Hmmm.

Douglas’ views on slavery were purposely murky, he believed in “popular sovereignty,” that is the voters, who comprised only of white males in the 19th century, should decide where slavery should exist. The Little Giant owned a plantation in Mississippi with slaves. Well, not exactly, but it was in his wife’s name.

How long will it be before those Douglas statues in Illinois will be vandalized? When will the call for their removal begin? And those seven plazas with Lincoln and Douglas will look unbalanced with just one man. Will Lincoln, who at one time of course was a racist, albeit most whites were bigots in the 1800s, get yanked too from those spots too?

Nancy Pelosi is calling for the removal of eleven statues honoring Confederates at Statuary Hall. Each state gets two statues, some of these honorees are well-known, Andrew Jackson represents Tennessee, George Washington is one of Virginia’s statues. Both men of course owned slaves. Some of the honorees are virtually unknown. Frances Willard, the longtime president of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, a group that assisted in establishing Prohibition in America, represents Illinois in the hall. Like Douglas, she was a big deal in her day. But Willard held racist views and she feuded with African American civil rights leader Ida B. Wells.

When you remove the Confederates, the slave holders, and the racists, how many statues will be left in Statuary Hall?

How many statues in front of libraries, village squares, or county courthouses will be removed?

Where does is it all end?

And if all of the statues are gone, then what?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

What you have to believe to be Pro-Slavery Abortion

Abortion is the third pillar of the three great American evils that the democratic party has supported. The first was Slavery, the second was Jim Crow and the third is Abortion (Ironically all three target blacks and/or minorities). The day will come when people shake their heads wondering what folks were thinking for abortion in the same way they do on the others.

DaTechGuy We’re Fighting the Bloody Lot 1/20/2011

On this day of the annual Right to life march I hit a nerve with one of my liberal friends on twitter.

I was hitting Wendy Davis on her false narrative and pointed out that her claim to fame is supporting late-term abortion.  Once I tweeted that the entire thread became about abortion where I was fighting a lone pro-life battle (perhaps all my friends are in DC marching).

During the debate a woman scoffed at my dismissal of “choice” saying I would never have to make that “choice” when I answered

That struck a nerve and brought an instant reaction from a regular liberal member of my Magnificent Panel Maxine Baptise:

Maxine’s offense not withstanding I’ve been equating Abortion & Slavery for a long time. So for the sake of those who do not understand the argument let me make it as plain as possible. In order to morally justify slavery it is necessary to do one or more of the following:

1. Deny the Humanity of the slave:

Marshal: They’re mutants! Mutts! They’re diseased! To be wiped off the face of the planet!

Doctor Who The Mutants 1972

If a Slave is not human then you are not enslaving a human being so it doesn’t matter if you own a slave or how you treat one.

1a. Admit the humanity of the slave but maintain it is inferior.

Col Montgomery:  Look around. You really think anybody’s gonna put these boys into real combat? Do you? They’re little children, for God’s sake. They’re little monkey children.

Glory 1989

If you can’t deny the actual humanity of a slave you can instead insist that the slave is a lower form of life, Alexander Stephens (D-GA) famously made that case in the what has been called the cornerstone speech:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

Hey slavery is OK these people are an inferior race.

2. Emphasize the slave as property not as a person.

Calvin Candie:Seeing as you won’t pay a penny for this pickaninny here, you won’t mind me handling this nigger here any way I see fit? Django:He’s your nigger.

Django unchained 2012

If you can’t manage to deny the humanity of the slave the next step is to emphasize the slave as property. After all the slave is owned by someone else and you have no business telling someone what to do with their own property.

3.  Insist that the alternative is worse:

Captain Kirk: If we win, the Enterprise and its crew leaves here in safety. Further more, all the thralls on the planet must be freed.
Provider Two: Anarchy. They would starve.

Star Trek The Gamesters of Triskelion 1968

Haggis: I hear they’re deserting ten at a time.
Col Shaw:
Oh, you’re misinformed. We haven’t had a single incident.
Kendrick: I figure the nigs never had it so good. Three square a day, a root over their heads.

Glory 1989

If you can’t make the humanity or the property argument then you can make the “they’re better off” under slavery after all how do you expect these people to feed themselves or clothe themselves, in fact you’re doing a public service by providing for those poor innocent soles.  Much better to leave them where they were. And if all else fails and you can’t find a moral justification for slavery you can find one to ignore it…

4.  Maintain it’s none of our business:

Cetshayo:  Do I go to the country of the white man and tell him to change his laws and customs?

Zulu Dawn 1979

I remember (although I can’t for the life of me find the quote) reading of a contemporary Englishman during the time of the civil war not understanding why Americans would bother to fight a war because one side wants to hire their servants by the other while the other chooses to hire them for life.  What business is it if the Barbary Pirates, or the Romans, or the British or the Spanish or the Americans or anyone else choose to hold slaves?  Live and let live you mind your business and I’ll mind mine if we do that we’ll all get along better.  It’s not out business.

5.  Insist It’s settled law

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

US Constitution Article 4 Section 2 (cancelled by 13 Amendment)

The US constitution specifically allowed slavery and the importation of slaves until 1808. State Constitutions allowed it and it’s been the law of the land since those states were colonies. It’s one thing to forbid slavery in areas where it didn’t exist before but this is settled law and we’ve better off letting it be.

6.  And finally maintain we can’t really do anything about it anyways

Stephen: You can’t destroy Candieland! we’ve been here. There’s always going to be a Candieland!

Django Unchained 2012

Even if you don’t like slavery w hat do you expect us to do?   Raise millions of troops and fight a war costing hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars of property to end it? Even people who had no interest in slavery would fight against us?

Early in the conflict, he used to say, a squad of Union soldiers closed in on a ragged Johnny Reb. Figuring that he did not own slaves, nor had much interest in the constitutional question of secession, they asked him: “What are you fighting for, anyhow?” The Confederate replied: “I’m fighting because you’re down here.”

The Guardian June 5th 2005 Obit for Shelby Foote

Fight a way to end slavery, that’s just crazy religious extremist talk!

*********************************************************************************

If those arguments seems familiar that’s because you have been hearing then for 40+ years on the subject of Abortion.

1.  Abortion doesn’t kill a person

The fetus is biologically human only in the sense that any part of a human body is human: every cell carries the full genetic code. A severed hand is genetically human as well but we don’t call it a person.” Virginia Ramey Mollenkott

1a. The Unborn are humans but not “people”

  2.  My Body my choice

  3.  Do you want more poor children in the world?

4.  Don’t want an abortion?  Don’t have one.


5 & 6  Roe v wade is settled law and it’s a waste of time and resources to fight abortion.

**********************************

I want to close with one more tweet from today…

I suspect this tweet from the Pope will not get a whole lot of play today from the media that has lionized him.

…and a thought from 2009

 slavery was accepted as a fact of life for ten thousand years until a British Christian Named William Wilberforce pushed a government tirelessly. And this was in a society that harbored contempt and ridicule and stigmatization for religious enthusiasm. The elites or “polite society” considered it a transgression to believe and practice

Slavery has existed as long as human history.  I suspect no person alive today can fail to find a slave in their ancestry if they go back far enough.  It took the might of the Royal Navy to end the slave trade in the 1800’s and while slavery still exists in the world, particularly and ironically in Africa the reason why it is a hidden trade rather than an open one was due to the efforts of Christians like Wilberforce who withstood the same barbs that Christians who oppose abortion do today.

Update: Just heard on EWTN Everyone who was for Slavery was free, everyone who is for abortion is alive.