Those Republicans Refused To Compromise In The 60s

and it’s all been downhill for the US ever since. And the majority of the blame for the refusal to compromise is religion. Yes, Republicans are uncompromising and evil. Yes, religion is uncompromising and evil. And if the Republicans had been willing to compromise back in the 60s, we’d be the better for it.

You see, the Democrats wanted slavery back in the 60s and the Republicans didn’t want it. The Republicans refused to compromise with the pro-slavery desires of the Democrats. And people died. Lots of people. And it’s the Republicans’ fault. And religion. Because they wouldn’t compromise. Actually, the problem began in earnest in ’54. That’s when the Republicans started their religious refusal to compromise. The year the Republicans were founded. That’s right, 1854.

Or so the fact-free Washington Post Leftist columnist Richard Cohen is pushing. Ed Morrissey is on top of things, as per usual, now that he’s back from his European vacation.

I may have read less coherent rants on American exceptionalism than today’s column by Richard Cohen, but I’m not sure I can say when. In attempting to argue that American exceptionalism has somehow become a religious doctrine, Cohen then argues — as near as I can tell — that its “dogma” has killed the art of compromise. Furthermore, Cohen can pinpoint exactly when this started, and to no one’s great shock, it’s when the Republican Party first formed. And then Cohen tells of the dire consequences that followed from the founding of the High Church of Republicanism:

The huge role of religion in American politics is nothing new but always a matter for concern nonetheless. In the years preceding the Civil War, both sides of the slavery issue claimed the endorsement of God. The 1856 Republican convention concluded with a song that ended like this: “We’ve truth on our side/ We’ve God for our guide.” Within five years, Americans were slaughtering one another on the battlefield.

Therein lies the danger of American exceptionalism. It discourages compromise, for what God has made exceptional, man must not alter. And yet clearly America must change fundamentally or continue to decline. It could begin by junking a phase that reeks of arrogance and discourages compromise. American exceptionalism ought to be called American narcissism. We look perfect only to ourselves.

Er … what? Is Cohen seriously arguing that Republicans should have compromised on the issue of slavery? That the Civil War was the fault of Republicans for opposing continuing enslavement of human beings?

Morrissey goes on to quote Ramesh Ponnuru:

Does Cohen really want to maintain that the Republicans of the 1850s should have been more willing to compromise on slavery? Is this what liberalism has come to?

Doug Mataconis adds some histo-fact lumber into the rhetorical beating Cohen is taking for his fact-free “compromise for the sake of compromise” bather.

As Cohen should well know, while the Republican Party was founded on opposition to slavery, and abolitionists were a large segment of the party’s base in that first election, the real motivation behind the formation of the GOP was opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and would have permitted expansion of slavery into the Kansas Territory if the settlers voted in favor of it. Four years later, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln campaigned not on abolition of slavery, but on opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories. So, Cohen’s suggestion that it was the GOP’s failure to “compromise” that led to Civil War is, quite simply, absurd.

As flawed as it is, he would have actually had a point if, instead of bizarrely attacking the 1856 Republicans, he had turned his attention to those in the South, including Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, who believed that slavery, and the superiority of whites over blacks, were ordained by God. They’re the ones who were perverting religion toward political ends, and they were the ones who refused to compromise. If the blood of the Civil War is on anyone’s hands, it is theirs.

Because, you see, the Republicans never compromised with the Democrats, and the Republicans don’t compromise with the Democrats, and everyone has to compromise with the Democrats, and the world would be a better place if Republicans compromised with the Democrats who not only wanted to keep slavery in the south but also wanted to expand slavery. Or something.

Do the Democrats ever have to compromise with Republicans? Or is it always a one-way street with the Left? Keep moving left, always move left, the only compromise is in how fast you move left. And we’ve always been at war with Oceana.
___________
Cross-Post

32 Comments

  1. You’re having fun with those labels, aren’t you? Try it again with “liberal” and “conservative.”

  2. And to think – the pro-slavery party is now the Republicans, which is why they attempt to destroy unions.

  3. Liberals always want and wanted Conservatives to cave oops Compromise on Lib Issues. And for years Republicans went along to get along.

  4. Liberals always want and wanted Conservatives to cave oops Compromise on Lib Issues.

    Was emancipating the slaves a liberal or conservative issue, Yorkie?

  5. Phoenician in a time of Romans says:
    10 May 2011 at 18:57 (Edit)
    Liberals always want and wanted Conservatives to cave oops Compromise on Lib Issues.

    Was emancipating the slaves a liberal or conservative issue, Yorkie?

    I think Liberal and Conservative had different meanings then as it was a completely different country and attitude then.

  6. I think Liberal and Conservative had different meanings then as it was a completely different country and attitude then.

    Conservative = “wanting to keep the status quo”.

    However, if that’s the case, then it sorta shows just what a pile of rubbish is this particular bull**** JH is peddling now. The Democrats and the Republicans of those days are not the same parties as those of current America.

    It’s a simple point – retaining slavery was a fundamentally conservative position back then. There is a direct line between the plantation aristocracy of teh old South and current conservative attempts to destroy the rights of workers and give even more power to the rich elite.

  7. Incorrect. I am characterising your statement.

    The fact that Dana has not deleted any of your personal insults shows how biased the policy is.

  8. Pho:
    It’s a simple point – retaining slavery was a fundamentally conservative position back then. There is a direct line between the plantation aristocracy of teh old South and current conservative attempts to destroy the rights of workers and give even more power to the rich elite.

    No, it wasn’t that simple. It was an agrarian life style here, and the industrial revolution had not started. Like today, a staunch Democrat supporter are unions, non existed then. Here’s a piece from Wikipedia and it wasn’t as simple as changing roles:
    Jacksonian democracy is the political philosophy of United States politician Andrew Jackson and his supporters. Jackson’s policies followed the era of Jeffersonian democracy which dominated the previous political era. Prior to and during Jackson’s time as President, his supporters (the beginnings of the modern Democratic Party) were resisted by the rival Adams and Anti-Jacksonian factions, which later gave rise to the Whigs. More broadly, the term refers to the period of the Second Party System (mid 1830s-1854) when Jacksonian philosophy was ascendant as well as the spirit of that era. It can be contrasted with the characteristics of Jeffersonian democracy. Jackson’s equal political policy became known as Jacksonian Democracy, subsequent to ending what he termed a “monopoly” of government. During the Jacksonian era, the electorate expanded to include all white male adult citizens, rather than only land owners in that group.

    In contrast to the Jeffersonian era, Jacksonian democracy promoted the strength of the presidency and executive branch at the expense of Congress, while also seeking to broaden the public’s participation in government. They demanded elected (not appointed) judges and rewrote many state constitutions to reflect the new values. In national terms the Jacksonians favored geographical expansion, justifying it in terms of Manifest Destiny. There was usually a consensus among both Jacksonians and Whigs that battles over slavery should be avoided. The Jacksonian Era lasted roughly from Jackson’s 1828 election until the slavery issue became dominant after 1850 and the American Civil War dramatically reshaped American politics as the Third Party System emerged.

    More here

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

  9. No, it wasn’t that simple.

    Yes, it is that simple, because you are missing the obvious point.

    Plantation slavery asserts that the mass of humanity exist as a means towards the enrichment of an elite few. Anti-unionism asserts that the mass of humanity exist as a means towards the enrichment of an elite few. In both cases, the rights inherent in the human nature of the workers (the right to freedom, the right to organise) are considered of less value than the profits of the owners.

    It’s that simple, Yorkie.

  10. And yet many of this “mass of humanity” support the ideology of these elites, against their own best interests and the overall interests of our nation as a whole. To me, this is beyond rational comprehension, therefore my only conclusion is that these mass victims have been effectively brainwashed. This is why the elites oppose improvements in education! We are victims of our own mythology. Incredible! How else can one explain this phenomenon of supporting these exploitative, wealthy elitists?

  11. Yeah, let’s not discuss the article. That would be too hard on the Left. Let’s run in tangents and get stuck in backwater eddies so the Left doesn’t have to face facts.

  12. Plantation slavery asserts that the mass of humanity exist as a means towards the enrichment of an elite few. Anti-unionism asserts that the mass of humanity exist as a means towards the enrichment of an elite few. In both cases, the rights inherent in the human nature of the workers (the right to freedom, the right to organise) are considered of less value than the profits of the owners.

    It’s that simple, Yorkie.

    Big difference: As a slave you were property and couldn’t quit and find a better plantation, but as an employee, you quit and find better job and/or get more education. In the South they would just kill people who tried to teach reading to slaves.

  13. “And to think – the pro-slavery party is now the Republicans, which is why they attempt to destroy unions.”

    Are you saying if one does not like unions then one is pro-slavery? Cause that is just rediculous. Matter of fact from my observations, heavy duty union guys seem to be enslaved by their very unions they defend.

    “Was emancipating the slaves a liberal or conservative issue, Yorkie?”

    Neither. It was a Christian issue. Heathens wouldn’t understand.

    ” This is why the elites oppose improvements in education! ”

    Really? Exactly which “elites” oppose improvements in education? Or by that do you mean throwing more money at the theachers unions? So I’m a bad elitist if I believe by my own observation that said unions have not only harmed education of the students but also have harmed the fiscal well being of the states and municipalities they (are supposed to) serve? Teachers unions do nothing for students. They exist to suck money out of the taxpayer and defend teachers, not students. These unions do absolutely nothing for education. You want to know who the elitists are? They are the unions (public not private)and their supporters. Anyone today who really believes in good education either sends their kids to a private or Catholic school or home schools. That’s how good our public education system has gotten under socialist Democrat unions. Elitists indeed.

    And take your head out of your butt, the unions have controlled education in this country since the fifties. If education sucks, whose fault is it? I guess you believe it’s my fault even though having no children of my own and paying $12,000 a year in school taxes I’m not “paying my fair share”, right?

  14. “These unions do absolutely nothing for education. You want to know who the elitists are? They are the unions (public not private)and their supporters. Anyone today who really believes in good education either sends their kids to a private or Catholic school or home schools. That’s how good our public education system has gotten under socialist Democrat unions. Elitists indeed.”

    Hoagie John, I’ll give it to you for understanding how to run a business, but I won’t give it to you on understanding the pluses and minuses of our K-12 education system.

    Your view expressed here is typical of someone who has no concept whatsoever of the current challenges facing the typical American classroom teacher. Moreover, you show absolutely no appreciation for their efforts and achievements, nor for the positive aspects of certain teachers’ unions. And finally, you apparently do not understand the vital connection between the vitality or lack thereof of the American family and the vitality or lack thereof in the educational outcome of our children.

    Excuse me for saying so, but yours is the statement of an uninformed political ideologue whose self-interest seems to supersede the needs of the community itself wrt educational issues and policies. You said not one positive word about our public education system and our public educators. Of course I am fussing, because I lived in a public school classroom for almost 10 years as a teacher, therefore know a little bit about that of which I speak. You haven’t!

  15. Let’s take this bit by bit.

    “I won’t give it to you on understanding the pluses and minuses of our K-12 education system.”

    Oh, I understand the minuses, I’ve been the recipiant of them. Kids who can’t read, write or do basic math but have graduated your K-12 public schools. I employed them. I would hold in-house classes to show employees how to write a dinner order. I also observed the pluses: they all had wonderful self esteem even if they couldn’t add up a customers check.

    “… no concept whatsoever of the current challenges facing the typical American classroom teacher. Moreover, you show absolutely no appreciation for their efforts and achievements…”

    All jobs have challenges, if you can’t handle them seek other employment. And I do have appreciation for their efforts. When they are not taking three months off in the summer, a Christmas/New year break and twenty or so paid holidays they actually show up in a class room. And as far as their achievements go, well, we have such highly educated kids it speaks foer itself.

    “… positive aspects of certain teachers’ unions.”

    What are the positive aspects of these unions? Keeping lousy teachers employed? Getting more vacation and holiday pay? Better retirement benefits? Please elaborate.

    “…yours is the statement of an uninformed political ideologue…”

    Why, because I disagree? So I must be uninformed and a political ideologue? I’m not an insider like yourself but I do have eyes and ears and I can read about what our public education system has wrought. Unless you think I’m too stupid to understand. And my politics have nothing to do with the crappy public education system in this country. Perhaps to you education is a matter of political ideology but to me it’s a matter of national survival, not politics.

    “…whose self-interest seems to supersede the needs of the community itself wrt educational issues and policies…”

    Self interest? What the hell does my self interest have to do with a broken public education system? What the hell is the matter with you? You’re projecting again if you believe I would ever place my self intrests above the community or the nation or the proper education of just one little kid. That’s been one of your little fall-backs here. Anyone with whom you don’t agree is puting their “self interests” ahead of the common good. That’s pure BS.

    “You said not one positive word about our public education system and our public educators.”

    That’s because I, as a businessman, am result oriented. I see the results of our public education system and public educators and I am not impressed. I see the cost of the same and feel cheated out of my money. Sorry, but if you came to my restaurant to eat and the portion was tiny and the food bad you’d be disappointed too, wouldn’t you? But you’re not forced to eat at my restaurant, I am forced to pay for this travesty called public education.

    If I had kids they’d go to private school or as my niece does, be home schooled. There’s something positive, Positively don’t send your kids to public school now adays.

  16. BTW Perry, I’m not challenging your credentials nor your ability as a teacher. I’ve met you and just from that brief meeting I would say you’d be the kind of teacher that would make me interested in learning. You strike me as the kind of teacher that could even make a subject such as economics or civics interesting just by your enthusiasm. BUT, you must see how poorly our public education has become over the last fifty years. We can put some blame on the parents, on the family. But also some blame has to go to the policies in our schools and the all powerful teacher’s unions. There is enough blame to go around. But I’m not a “blame” guy. I’m a “take responsability and fix it guy”. I believe from my own observation that a good start toward correcting our education problem would be to get the federal government out of the business. They muck things up with petty rules and mandates and the money spent on the DoE would be better spent if it were kept local. Just an opinion.

  17. Hoagie John, I stand by my previous comments. It is difficult to debate with an ideologue who closes his eyes to reality.

    Again, you have no concept of what a teacher puts into his/her work, in terms of effort or hours. In hours per year, including lesson planning, grading papers, tutoring students after hours, and earning required extra education credits, I can assure you that a teacher with the usual 180 day work (36 week) school year/60 hour per week puts in more hours in a year than the average 240 day work (48 week) per year/40 hour per week employee. Do the math: Teacher – 2160 hours per year; Worker – 1920 hours per year. Surprised, Hoagie John?

    Furthermore, taking into consideration the median salary of a teacher, the teacher and worker are making about the same hourly wage.

    Based on your misinformation, one would expect college graduates to be flocking into the teaching profession. Such is not the case. Moreover, an incredible number of teachers leave the profession within five years, about 50% nationally.

    I think most teachers will admit that it takes a good five years to hit stride in the profession, half of whom have left by that time, so schools are faced with the expense of constant recruiting and training, plus having so many inexperienced teachers in the system. Compare this to Finland, the top education system on the globe, in which the teaching profession is prestigious, even though the salaries are similar or lower than other professions. Like you, Hoagie John, the teaching profession here is not highly regarded by some people, mainly the ideologues among us. Why is this, in spite of the fact that our public schools turn out children who are at least the equal of the best in the world? Just look at their history of American accomplishments in the sciences and technology. Doesn’t have anything to do with their teachers, does it Hoagie John?

    But no, you ideologues, in your search for scapegoats, have chosen our public education system to be one of them, unjustly so in my view.

  18. I stand by my previous comments. It is difficult to debate with an ideologue who closes his eyes to reality.

    That is exactly how all of us feel when we try to talk to you, Perry. You have absolutely no sense of reality and you have absolutely no desire to see reality. The reality is half of Detroit’s students graduate high school. The reality is half of those who graduate know how to read. The reality is private school students routinely outperform public school students at half the cost. The reality is home schooled students routinely outperform private school students. The reality is K-12 education costs have skyrocketed much faster than inflation dating back to the 1960s while outcomes have stagnated or fallen. The reality is kids are less well educated today than 40 years ago but with a massive, huge ego that doesn’t even remotely tie into their performance or ability. The reality is public education is a joke, a glorified babysitter service and not much else.

    Throwing money at the teachers’ unions and thinking it’ll help the kids is like trying to bail out a rowboat by taking water from the river and putting it inside the boat. “Once the students start paying union dues, then I’ll start considering the needs of the students.” — a previous AFT National President.

  19. John, the reality I described is the reality I have seen, experienced, read about, and to which I have given much thought. There are volumes more to be said on this topic, and volumes more to be done.

    You have made a lot of statements without foundation, therefore hardly convincing.

    I don’t doubt the problems of our educational system. In spite of them, we still turn out many outstanding students. How does this happen? Are they all home schooled? For some reason, you ideologues choose not to include the successes in your conversations. Instead, your intent is to diminish our teachers, instead of constructively approaching the overall problem holistically.

    Why have you not even mentioned the impact of our deteriorating social fabric on our children and their education, an education which begins in the home and depends [for success, usually,] on a stable home life and devoted parents, and on the teachers, in order to have a reasonable chance at a successful outcome? But no, to you it is all about the teachers.

    Why haven’t you become a teacher, John? Oh, never mind; perish the thought!

    Show me the money that is being thrown at the teacher’s unions as you claim, John. In my school district, union membership was not compulsory. And by the way, what don’t you like about teachers’ unions? Please be specific, and with documentation.

    Who was the former AFT National President who made the statement you quoted. Frankly, I don’t believe it, because I am familiar with all the AFT leaders from Albert Shanker on to the present; I cannot conceive of any one of them making such a statement.

  20. Gee, I don’t know.

    (Be warned, the links contain language that might leave delicate little flowers who complain about such things reeling for their fainting couches and shrieking weakly for some smelling salts)

  21. Why haven’t you become a teacher, John? Oh, never mind; perish the thought!

    Because I ran out of money trying to. And I was a home school teacher for 3 years, so I had a lot of regulations I had to follow. You already read about that. And I was an in-school college math tutor and an out-of-school high school math tutor and I taught geometry to a fifth grade class one day a week for a semester. And my brother is a University professor. He deals with the product of public schools. My mother is retired from Kroger. She had to train the products of public schools. You think I don’t know anything? You’re a fool for thinking such, and a forgetful fool at that.

    And I have already written multiple articles about the failings of public schools and teacher unions. Articles you ignored but commented on anyway. And, by the way, you have made a lot of statements without foundation, therefore hardly convincing.

  22. “And, by the way, you have made a lot of statements without foundation, therefore hardly convincing.”

    Without foundation? My foundation is my personal experience as a classroom teacher for almost ten years. And yes, it is anecdotal. So take from it what you wish, reject what you wish! We’ll see if others on here weigh in on this topic.

    I note that you did not give details at money being thrown at teachers’ unions. By whom, John? When? Where? Not convincing!

    I also note that you did not identify the AFT National President who made the statement you supposedly quoted. Did you make this up?

    [Added: Neither home schooling, tutoring, nor teaching a day a week does not at all compare to having full responsibility for student outcomes for a full school year, especially given that there is a lot that is extremely difficult, though certainly not impossible, for a teacher overcome, especially familial and societal dysfunctions. Ask Hube! Ask Dana why he, certainly qualified, is unwilling to become a classroom teacher.]

  23. Perry, I have written many articles about education. In those articles, I have provided data, quotes, links, etc. I have already done the work and presented it. You were here when I did. Those articles are readily available for your edification should you ever choose to quit being blindly partisan and enslaved by the Union plantation. Do your homework, Perry.

    And before you knock home schooling parents as not having full responsibility for student outcomes, you should educate yourself on the pile of regulations and all the requirements home school parents must meet by law. And you should try doing the job some time.

    Record-keeping.
    One-year lesson plans, including materials to be used.
    Mandatory minimum 900 hours educating.
    Mandatory minimum education coursework.
    Standardized testing or examination by certified educator.

    You deeply offend me by claiming I did not have full responsibility for student outcomes for a three-consecutive-year period. Seriously, Perry, before you say something else arrogantly and blatantly stupid, think again. And then do some growing up.

  24. “And before you knock home schooling parents as not having full responsibility for student outcomes, you should educate yourself on the pile of regulations and all the requirements home school parents must meet by law.”

    Please show me where I knocked home schooling parents, JH. This is a false charge.

    “You deeply offend me by claiming I did not have full responsibility for student outcomes for a three-consecutive-year period.”

    Please show me where I claimed this of you, JH. This is also a false charge.

    Here is what I actually did say:

    “[Added: Neither home schooling, tutoring, nor teaching a day a week does not at all compare to having full responsibility for student outcomes for a full school year, especially given that there is a lot that is extremely difficult, though certainly not impossible, for a teacher to overcome, especially familial and societal dysfunctions. Ask Hube! Ask Dana why he, certainly qualified, is unwilling to become a classroom teacher.]“

    I stand by that statement. Certainly it takes more to manage a classroom while shepherding 30 or so students through a school year, compared to home schooling one child, giving one lesson a week, or tutoring. In point of fact, I laud all those educational activities.

    I also note that you have so far failed to back up charges that you made, John:

    “I note that you did not give details at [about] money being thrown at teachers’ unions. By whom, John? When? Where? Not convincing!

    I also note that you did not identify the AFT National President who made the statement you supposedly quoted. Did you make this up?”

    As can be seen here, John, you make changes in translation, and you duck backing up allegations that you make without documentation. So what use is there in discussing anything with you if this is your manner?

  25. As can be seen here, John, you make changes in translation, and you duck backing up allegations that you make without documentation.

    No, Perry. Just no. I repeat, I have written multiple articles with multiple quotes, with large amounts of data, and multiple links to that information. I have given that documentation multiple times. It is your plain laziness and blind partisanship that makes you claim otherwise. Because if you were required to tell the truth, you would be saying the exact opposite of what you said. That is a fact. The evidence is clearly available for you to research. That you choose not to do so and that you continue your accusation that your opponents are not providing the evidence they have already provided is a huge knock on your integrity (if you ever had any).

    Neither home schooling, tutoring, nor teaching a day a week does not at all compare to having full responsibility for student outcomes for a full school year,

    You deeply offend me by claiming I did not have full responsibility for student outcomes for a three-consecutive-year period. Seriously, Perry, before you say something else arrogantly and blatantly stupid, think again. And then do some growing up.

Comments are closed.