This morning, I was reading the various websites and I came across an article by Roger Hedgecock from San Diego. He was talking about the legacy of the Democrat party and its relation to slavery. I wrote an article on this some months ago, but it is a good time to revisit the issue as reparations are being discussed.

Blacks have the feeling that this is as good a time as any for them to start receiving money from the rest of America in the form of reparations. Their argument is that they were held as slaves against their will for over a hundred years, they should be paid for their pain and suffering. It does not matter to them that there is not one current slaveholder in the United States and there is not one person who was a slave in the United States. They just see it as free money from Uncle Sam.

Since this is an issue, we need to look at the history of the United States and the history of the two current political parties. The Democrat Party was formed from the old Democrat-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson. That party believed in holding slaves and was strongest in the Southern states. The new Democrat party was also strongest in the Southern states and adopted a plank that specifically endorsed slavery as an institution in their first convention to nominate a President. This plank was officially part of their political platform up to and including 1860.

In the 1860 election, the Democrat Party split into two factions. One faction wanted slavery officially adopted as public policy. The second faction was less strident about the issue. The first faction was in the South and the second in the North. After Abraham Lincoln was elected, the first faction took the South out of the Union and started the Civil War. The second faction became the appeasement party. This appeasement sentiment became part of the lexicon of the party for the next 150+ years.

After the Civil War, the three amendments that officially recognized slaves as citizens, gave them the vote and made discrimination illegal were adopted over the objection of the Democrat party. The Democrat party made up rules and poll taxes to keep blacks from voting. Members of the Democrat Party formed the KKK to kill Republicans. At the time in the South, killing Republicans meant that you were killing blacks for the most part. At no time was there ever a Republican in the KKK. The KKK was exclusively reserved for Democrats. That is why the South was solidly in the Democrat column up until the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was written by President Eisenhower near the end of his term of office. It was killed by the Democrat Congress while President Eisenhower was President. After President Kennedy, then President Johnson took office the bill was revived with a few minor changes. When the bill was finally adopted, there were not enough Democrat votes to pass the bill. It took an almost 100% vote from the Republicans to get the bill passed into law. Since then, blacks have seldom held leadership positions within the Democrat party.

Republicans on the other hand have always been abolitionist. They were formed in 1856 to stop slavery. In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected as the first Republican President and he ended slavery by the end of the Civil War. Then, the Republicans worked tirelessly to end discrimination against blacks by passing Constitutional amendments and laws. Finally, the Democrats saw the handwriting on the wall and embraced anti-discrimination. They were the majority party by then and they hijacked the media’s perception of who led the fight. As a result, most people believe that the Republican Martin Luther King was a Democrat.

The Democrats fought long and hard to keep blacks as second class citizens. First they wanted them as slaves, and then they wanted to make them citizens without the protection of the law. They should be rewarded for all that hard work. If reparations are ever part of the American scene, heaven forbid, Democrats should be the ones to pay. Republicans should not have to pay. Also, how are they going to determine those who should pay reparations?

My mother’s family immigrated here in the 1910’s so they did not own slaves. They lived in California so they were not members of the KKK or any other discriminatory group. My father’s family has been here since the Mayflower. They lived mainly in Massachusetts, Ohio and California. None of them ever owned slaves. Some of them fought for the North in the Civil War. How can they claim that my family owes anyone reparations? We paid in blood for the freedom of the slaves. My ancestors were either in Sweden, Norway or the North. Those in the North were in the heart of abolitionist territory. I have a black son and a daughter that is probably half black. Do I have to pay them reparations?

Democrats on the other hand have an unbroken line back to the beginning of discrimination against blacks and other people of color that includes Hispanics and Asians. If reparations need to be paid, it should be paid by those that have a history of discrimination, Democrats. They should take the money from Democrats and give it to whoever the Congress says has been discriminated against. That would be the only fair way of doing it. My family paid in blood. Other Northern Republican families have paid in blood. Democrats stood on the sidelines and tried to keep blacks as slaves. The question is clear. The problem is that those that want reparations are Democrats. They would never vote to tax Democrats to pay to Democrats. They would want to tax Republicans to give to Democrats. They would consider that fair, even though that would be the most unfair tax of all.

Yesterday, the Congressional Black Caucus complained that there were not enough black owned businesses participating in the bailout. Then some women’s groups complained that there were not enough women owned businesses participating in the bailout. Those are ridiculous statements on their face.

The statements are saying that the government has to check on who owns a business before they can participate in the bailout. The criterion is then not if you need a bailout but whether you are part of the correct group to receive the funds. That defeats the purpose of the bailout which is to give funds to those businesses that are in danger of folding. If it is no longer whether your business is failing that determines the receipt of bailout funds, the funds are no longer a bailout but a gift or welfare. The whole purpose of the bailout was to help those large businesses that were in danger of going under. There was no thought given to what racial group or sex of the owners of the large corporations in question. In fact, most of those large corporations are owned by more than one person and they are usually of more than one sex and color, though not all.

The second thing about the statements of the Congressional Black Caucus and the women’s groups is the recognition that the agenda of racial and sexual politics is still with us. With the election of Barack Obama, many conservative blacks voted for him with the hope that it would end racial quotas and the entire idea that one race is being discriminated against. Those of us on the conservative side who warned them that it would not happen are being proven right, but there is no satisfaction. I wish I had been wrong. I wish that it had ended the idea that we had to have racial quotas to help blacks get ahead. I abhor the thought of racial quotas. I believe that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was right when he said that people should be judged on the basis of their character, not their color. The Congressional Black Caucus thinks otherwise. They believe that they should be judged by their color, not their character.

Women’s groups are even further out of line in claiming discrimination. More women than men attend college. More women than men get a college degree. More women than men get graduate degrees. That is not discrimination. They have no leg to stand on when they claim discrimination. It is men who should be claiming discrimination. Boys are discriminated against from Kindergarten thru High School. School today is designed to teach girls. School is not designed to teach boys. The results show that the schools are successful. Boys have more excess energy than girls in elementary school. They are told to sit quietly like the girls so they can learn. They have a hard time sitting quietly when they want to run and jump. Schools are eliminating physical education where boys get the chance to run and jump. Schools are eliminating the ability of boys to run and jump during playground activities by setting up rules against it. What we need to do is have schools for girls and schools for boys where we can cater to each. We would have much more success in teaching boys than we do today. We would also have more success in teaching girls.

The statement by the Congressional Black Caucus is blatantly racist. In fact, just having a Congressional Black Caucus is racist. Having a Congressional Black Caucus is actually against the Constitution, but Congress cares little for the Constitution. Their actions show that they do not care about what the Constitution says. Someone should go through the list of Congressional Caucus groups and eliminate any that are anti-Constitutional. That would help to bring the Congress more in line with what the Founding Fathers intended our Republic to look like.

My goal in life is to have a society where it is color blind. Where people are judged for the content of their character, not for the color of their skin would be the mantra people followed. This would also include sex, religion and any other form of discrimination. People should be judged for whom they are, not what they are. That is the way that society should be, not our current quota system where everyone loses. In the quota system, the person getting the quota loses because now they are deemed less of a person. People that do not use the quota system to get ahead, but are of the same racial group, are still judged to be lesser individuals because the quota system labels them as lesser candidates. That lowers everyone instead of raising everyone. If nobody received a quota then you would have to be judged on your own accomplishments, not on your quota. That would be fair to everyone. If you succeeded, you would get the credit. On the other hand, if you failed, you would also get the credit for failing.