HT Thoughts of a Regular Guy
May 5, 2009
May 5, 2009 at 3:40 am
How very Biblical! “He being dead yet speaketh…” (Hebrews 11:4).
May 5, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I don’t think this is very apropriate. The Democratic party at the time this man was born was one generation away from slave-owners (Kansas was a Democrat/slave-state). Throughout this man’s life, the Democratic party (or the Dixie-crats) were pro-segregation and routinely commited acts of fraud and treason against its own citizens. Yet at the time of his death, the Democratic party had turned into something much different, and had less than 10 years prior “turned a corner” in the fight for civil rights and abandoning its previous pro-segregation stance. This of course culminated with the election of the first Catholic president of the US, also a Democrat.
So, considering the fact this man died in 1968, 5 years after the JFK assassination, 3 years after the “Voting Rights Act” and 5 years before Roe v Wade, just what was this man’s issue with the Democratic party in 1968? And is this the type of man you would want in YOUR party?
May 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm
the dude died in 1890. Look at the tombstone.
Thank you for your input though.
May 5, 2009 at 1:44 pm
AH! MEA MAXIMA CULPA, Matthew. My sincere apologies, as this is then VERY appropriate. This man may have been one of the “free-statesmen” of Kansas (i.e. those who petitioned Kansas’ entry as a free-state) and lamented what the Southern Democrats had done to his territory/state (i.e. Bloody Kansas). So, it would appear that the Democratic party had indeed come full circle a century (and counting) later.
Although I was not alive at the time, I think there was a brief period in American history from 1956 – 1969 when the Democratic party was respectable and visionary. But yes, I would agree with everything on that tombstone at this point.
May 5, 2009 at 1:51 pm
May 5, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The Democrat party has been the party of race baiting since the end of the Civil War. The 1960s were no exception. I’m sure you know that the Civil Rights Act was supported more by Republicans than Democrats. There is a reason that Martin Luther King Jr. remained a Republican until he was gunned down. Even had the guy in question died in 1968, he could choose to oppose a tremendous amount of evil in the Democrat Party, not limited to foreign policy, the socialism of FDR (opposed by the first Catholic nominee to the Presidency, Al Smith, who campaigned against FDR) Let’s see, also there is the Sexual Revolution, Feminists, the activist judges, 90+ percent top marginal tax rates, tariffs, the prosecution of the war in Vietnam, Connecticut v. Griswold which set the stage for Roe v. Wade, et cetera, et cetera. How long would you like me to go on?
May 5, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I’m not terribly happy about this. The guy felt strongly about it, but is his tombstone the appropriate place – even at his request? It is not healthy for the republic to have political divisions lasting after death.
Then again, he seems to have protested based not on party loyalty but on what he thought that party represented in larger society.
Eh, I don’t know. In any case I don’t feel comfortable scoring a political point off some guy’s 110+ year-old epitath.
May 5, 2009 at 4:13 pm
It goes to show that some things never change.
May 5, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Luke 16:31“Then Abraham said to him, ‘If your brothers do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even if someone were to rise from the dead.'”
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
© 2021 Creative Minority Report — Powered by WordPress
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑