Let's Go Back...to 1835
“Make America great again!” is the cry that rallied the mob, and the response was “not going back!” But what does going back or not really mean? Go back to when? More importantly go back to what and to whom?
Here are some powerful excerpts from speeches by Thaddeus Stevens from 1835 and running to 1866 that I believe have great relevance to the crisis we now face after recent events. Maybe the struggle is timeless.
Would advocacy for these causes as expressed by Stevens be welcome among Democrats today without rancor and dissension, without bitter disputes ad antagonisms? Where are the comparable advocates today for public education, for equality under the law, for the needs of working class people, and gender equality, in defense of the have-nots, the need for public programs to advance public health and well being? If advocacy for these causes is not welcome among Democrats, why is it not? If these causes are not to be championed boldly and unambiguously by Democrats, then by whom?
Enough from me. Here is Thaddeus Stevens.
If an elective Republic is to endure for any great length of time, every elector must have sufficient information, not only to accumulate wealth and take care of his pecuniary concerns, but to direct wisely the Legislatures, the ambassadors, and the Executive of the Nation – for some part of all these things, some agency in approving or disapproving of them, falls to every freeman. If, then, the permanency of our Government depends upon such knowledge, it is the duty of Government to see that the means of information be diffused to every citizen. This is a sufficient answer to those who deem education a private and not a public duty – who argue that they are willing to educate their own children, but not their neighbor’s children.
Many complain of this tax (to fund public education) , not so much on account of its amount, as because it is for the benefit of others and not themselves. This is a mistake; it is for their own benefit, inasmuch as it perpetuates the Government and ensures the due administration of the laws under which they live, and by which their lives and property are protected. Why do they not urge the same objection against all other taxes? The industrious, thrifty, rich farmer, pays a heavy county tax to support criminal courts, build jails, and pay sheriffs and jail keepers, and yet probably he never has, and never will have, any direct personal use of either. He never gets the worth of his money by being tried for a crime before the court, allowed the privilege of the jail on conviction or receiving an equivalent from the sheriff or his hangman officers! He cheerfully pays the tax which is necessary to support and punish convicts, but loudly complains of that which goes to prevent his fellow being from becoming a criminal, and to obviate the necessity of those humiliating institutions.
This law is often objected to, because its benefits are shared by the children of the profligate spendthrift equally with those of the most industrious and economical habits. It ought to be remembered that the benefit is bestowed, not upon the erring parents, but the innocent children. Carry out this objection and you punish children for the crimes or misfortunes of their parents. You virtually establish castes and grades, founded on no merit of the particular generation, but on the demerits of their ancestors; an aristocracy of the most odious and insolent kind – the aristocracy of wealth and pride.
...
I know how large a portion of the community can scarcely feel any sympathy with, or understand the necessities of, the poor; or appreciate the exquisite feelings which they enjoy when they see their children receiving the boon of education, and rising in intellectual superiority above the clogs which hereditary poverty had cast upon them. It is not wonderful that he whose fat acres have descended to him from father to son in unbroken succession, should never have become familiar with misery, and therefore should never have sought for the surest means of alleviating it. Sir, when I reflect how apt hereditary wealth, hereditary influence, and perhaps, as a consequence, hereditary pride are to close the avenues and steel the heart against the wants and the rights of the poor, I am induced to thank my Creator for having, from early life, bestowed upon me the blessing of poverty. Sir, it is a blessing – for if there be any human sensation more ethereal and divine than all others, it is that which feelingly sympathizes with misfortune.
...
In my youth, in my manhood, in my old age, I had fondly dreamed that when any fortunate chance should have broken up for a while the foundation of our institutions, and released us from obligations the most tyrannical that ever man imposed in the name of freedom, that the intelligent pure and just men of this Republic, true to their professions and their consciences, would have so remodeled all our institutions as to have rid them from every vestige of human oppression, of the inequity of rights, of the recognized degradation of the poor, and the superior caste of the rich. In short, that no distinction would be tolerated in this purified Republic but what arose from merit and conduct. This bright dream has vanished ‘like the baseless fabric of a vision.’ I find that we shall be obliged to be content with patching up the worst portions of the ancient edifice, and leaving it, in many of its parts, to be swept through by the tempests, the frosts, and the storms of despotism. Do you inquire why, holding these views and possessing some will of my own, I accept so imperfect a proposition? I answer, because I live among men and not among angels; among men as intelligent, as determined, and as independent as myself, who not agreeing with me, do not choose to yield their opinions to mine. Mutual concession, therefore, is our only resort, or mutual hostilities.
...
I have done what I deemed best for humanity. It is easy to protect the interests of the rich and powerful. But it is a great labor to protect the interests of the poor and downtrodden. It is the eternal labor of Sisyphus, forever to be renewed. I know how unprofitable is all such toil. But he who is earnest heeds not such things. It has not been popular. But if there be anything for which I have entire indifference; perhaps I might say contempt, it is the public opinion which is founded on popular clamor.
...
But I have another objection to the amendment of my friend from Ohio. His proposition is to apportion representation according to the male citizens of the states. Why has he put in the word 'male?' It was never in the Constitution of the United States before. Why make a crusade against women in the Constitution of the nation? Is my friend as much afraid of their rivalry as the gentlemen on the other side are afraid of the rivalry of the Negro?