A "FACT" IN..."DEMOCRAT" HISTORY

Senator Stephen A. Douglas, "Democrat" Illinois,it might be said, was a man of conflicting convictions. He had, at first, given his endorsement to the 1857 "Dred Scott Decision"; but then, during his campaign for the Senate the following year, he had taken the position that the effect of the Act could be negated by popular sovereignty. He had opposed President Buchanan's attempt to effectuate onto Kansas a federal..."slave code", via a blatant injustice monstrosity, called the "Lecompton Constitution". But then, he also had said this: "I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to Negroes at all when they declared that all men were created equal. They did not mean Negroes, nor savage Indians,nor Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. They alluded to men of European birth and European descent--to white men, and to none others,when they declared that doctrine. So spoke Senator Stephen A. Douglas, "DEMOCRAT", Illinois, October 15, 1858.

JUST A BIT OF, DISMAL, RECOLLECTION

September 18, 1850, the (compromise) "Fugitive Slave Act" became law. It allowed that a "Special Federal Commissioner" could order assistance from "any bystander" in the apprehending of a runaway slave. The act also held that any citizen rendering assistance to a fugitive Negro would be subject to a fine of $1,000, a 6-month jail sentence, and $1,000 in damages, per fugitive slave. Now...this followed, exactly, two days later (September 20, 1850): "Be it enacted....That from and after January 1, 1851, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever, for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other State or place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into the said District by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall thereupon become liberated and free."

NEGRO SOLDIERS SNAP TO ATTENTION

From the start of the Civil War, abolitionists of the North had enthusiastically urged President Lincoln to accept Negroes into the military forces of the Federal Government. One of Lincoln's main concerns had been that doing so might trigger the loss of border States, loyal to the Union, should they see such a move as a Republican attempt to gain equality for the black man. And so, throughout 1861 Lincoln resisted the inclination. He had, as President, the "legal discretion" to employ Negroes by the military; that became the ground upon which Negro troops could be activated. As, during that first year, it became apparent the war would not be short term, Lincoln acquiesced. "Legitimate" acceptance of Negroes, as soldiers into Union Forces, first, became underway in Louisiana (September 26, 1862). "The First Louisiana Native Guards" were mustered into service under General Benjamin Franklin Butler ("Spoons", they use to call him, for having seized a 38-piece set of silverware in New Orleans from a woman who tried crossing Union lines).

THE "CREEPING" ROT

"I therefore believe", the American Creed concludes,"it is my duty to love my country; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies". That "Creed", of course, is no law; merely, just a statement of, or belief in, a principle. Americans are at liberty to, publically--even, on enemy soil--express despicable tirades of condemnation against their own nation. Many seem acutely fond of the practice, even if they do it for no reason other than, the inimical pleasure they derive out of being, infuriating. It does seem that, during the era of "hippie", it became among many fancy to, publically foul-mouth America, and many aspects of what might be considered traditional, Americana. Even so, Americans have the Constitutional grant to despise and to transgress that..."Creed" and, to hate this very nation they dare not vacate. As to that..."flag", legally, people may in public either burn or do otherwise desecration to it. Instead of a nation, how would a household fare, if some of its members made sport of doing disesteem to the family name; if they defaced walls of the home, and, routinely cursed household traditions and practices--all this, while flat-out refusing, emphatically, to pack grip and...get out?

ZONED-OUT

There is an alarming level of enthusiastic ignorance on the part of too many young Americans. This applies even among college graduates. When asked to name America's first president, Abraham Lincoln or even,Franklin Roosevelt, might be the shocking response. What could explain a college graduate believing New Mexico to be a foreign nation? How is it possible that a high school, or college, graduate would be unable to answer exactly on the number of States there are in the Union? These are not exaggerated examples; this is reality.

IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTING, Part III

Any woman subjecting to becoming impregnated by a man--"she knows before hand", to be a deadbeat dad who has, unashamedly, fathered multiple children by multiple women and, has been negligent regarding all his responsibilities as a father--"extremely debases herself". She also risks that her child could suffer encumbrances of having to grow up without the advantages of a responsible father; and unless she is of financial means, there is, too, the likelihood that her thoughtlessness could result in the responsibilities for financial support of that child being dumped onto the shoulders of others (society) who bore, no responsibility or involvement in the conception of, that child. The number of fathers who commit this woeful evil, against their own children, seems infinite and society seems to have become accustom to this callous practice with a disposition of, near tolerance of it. There are men having the inglorious reputation of fathering beyond a score of children and, by multiple women. A certain level of the most grotesque character is prerequisite, on the part of men who can lie down at night with a full stomach and sleep in blissful oblivion, entirely unconcerned about the welfare of children "they" caused to be born and then, had coldbloodedly abandoned. Trifling, negligent men who try evading their "natural and moral" obligation to dutifully apply themselves to all aspects of responsible fatherhood are heartless hindrances to a well-comported society. They are impediment nuisances, burdensome drags, unprincipled and ignominious parasites, who turn their backs on reponsibilities to children "they" caused to be born. They take as weakness, and then exploit, the goodwill of others (society) who take up the slack to support "their" children. If an able-bodied man were to present himself at your doorstep, with his multiple offsring at his side (each of which born to a different mother) and said to you that he needed to get on with his life; that "his" children impeded that need and therefore, he was dumping into "your" lap, all of "his" parental responsibilities; how, would you respond? Father-creatures or, deadbeat dads,whose children are supported by public largess are doing, in tantamount, precisely that.

IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTING, Part II

The young Austrailian baseball athlete who was recently shot dead, "on a whim", by one of a trio of teen-aged monsters, had been victimized by both the three thugs and, their irresponsible parents. However; thus far, the uncivilized killing-trio only, will be held accountable for this utterly monstrous slaughter and not, as well, their apparently dangerously derelict parents. "Foolishness," it reads in Proverbs (22-15), "is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from them". Parents who raise their kids, deliberately, neglectful--not, dutifully, addressing socially unacceptable conduct that, if not corrected can, as the child matures, manifest in criminal ways, detrimental to the innocent public--are contributory to, responsible and "absolutely" blameworthy for, whatever feloniously violent acts their undisciplined offspring may come to commit against society. Quite often derelict parents, raising undisciplined children, explain their actions saying, kids have only one time to be a child and, because they so love them, they refuse to spoil their childhood by not allowing that they be free to to grow up without being constantly corrected, admonished or told, no. That kind of thinking is a seed that develops rotten character and, is threatening to peaceful society. As I get along, I will reference many examples of society having suffered, destructively, as a result of woefully irresponsible and even, stupid, parenting.