During my frequent walks, I noticed a home that recently sold on the next street over from mine. As I walked by, I couldn't help but see their truck bore a Texas license plate with an Austin frame. Of course, my first thoughts were that although the folks were from Texas, perhaps they might be "liberals" as Austin is a very liberal oasis in the Red State of Texas. But on today's walk, I saw they had prominently displayed a brand new American flag - not the "real" American flag, but the "Betsy Ross" 13 state circular star flag. As a patriotic American, I couldn't help but think the folks left liberal Austin and chose deep Red Florida for a reason - to freely express their support for racism and Anti-American rhetoric. But how could I jump to such a conclusion without asking them directly what it meant? Obviously, I have no desire to engage in a bullshit discussion that would typically end with them proclaiming I "needed to learn my real American history." Nothing pains a historian and retired educator than having the uneducated challenge us on our actual knowledge (versus their very own ignorance).
So for those that are unaware, the popular use of the "Betsy Ross" flag is favored by White Supremacists to promote the recollection of an America that did not recognize the Rights of Women to vote and more importantly, the rights of African Americans to be free from slavery. Is it any wonder the modern day KKK rituals utilize the Betsy Ross Flag at their induction ceremonies (frequently along side the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy)? Yet, here in 2021, someone new to the neighborhood has no shame proudly displaying this symbol of hate and racism as the new "neighbors" on the street.
Which gets me to another point. Lately I have seen various Republican politicians railing against the notion of adding the District of Columbia as a State. In fact, GQP Senator Susan Collins insists the District could just be easily incorporated in the State of Maryland and they would then solve all of their arguments about "No taxation without representation" (a timeless argument made famous by the Founders of this the very USA we know and love). Except, even during my lifetime, our great flag added two stars with the additions of Hawaii and Alaska to our Union. And what about West Virginia having once separated from Virginia, or the splitting of the two Dakota Territories? I could go on and on, but you get my point. Some are even claiming the "Founders never anticipated ever having the District of Columbia admitted as a state." Except basic math illustrates that the Union had admitted 37 states since our founding. In fact, all of the States have entered the Union by a simple mechanism provided by the Framers in the Constitution itself.
Under Article IV, Section 3, CONGRESS has the authority to create the mechanisms to admit additional states. "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
How do we know this mechanism works in our "modern era?" Hawaii and Alaska were both admitted into the Union in my lifetime! Anyone who knows American history can tell you the battle to admit states in Antebellum America was solely designed to balance power between the existing slave and non-slave states. If you question this, take a closer look at the admissions of Missouri and Kansas. (See: www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/bleeding-kansas).
Now we have Republican politicians alleging that the "Filibuster must be preserved as it was called for by the Founders!" - Except it really wasn't. The Filibuster in the Senate first came into existence well after 1776, let alone 1791 when the Constitution was ratified. In fact, Alexander Hamilton (Founder and Framer frowned upon any mechanism that allowed a minority to dictate to a majority as argued in Federalist #22;
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a
majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number
to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching
towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its
real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy
of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an
insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and
decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies
of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government,
is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must,
in some way or other, go forward.iIf a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority,
respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done,
must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule
that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays;
continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public
good...It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the
necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor
of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.” (Emphasis added).
So if Alexander Hamilton (with the obvious concurrence of fellow Federalist author James Madison) felt a mechanism like the filibuster was contrary to democratic principles, then how in the hell do Republicans get off claiming it does? Because the Right Wind Echo chamber amplifies lies in an effort to convince constituents they alone know our history and anyone that disagrees with them is some sore of "Socialist, Commie, Anarchist" (your pick). Yet, while Republicans now claim they want to extend Civics/American History Education, one has to wonder who think think should create this "curriculum" and whom should teach it? My guess is they would prefer the guy from Texas flying the Betsy Ross flag to someone like me, an American that has been learning our real history for about 50 years! Go figure!?
As George Washington once wrote; "Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light." I wonder what other nonsense we would find once a bright light is shown on the motivations of the Republican Party.... Try to have a safe week!
So for those that are unaware, the popular use of the "Betsy Ross" flag is favored by White Supremacists to promote the recollection of an America that did not recognize the Rights of Women to vote and more importantly, the rights of African Americans to be free from slavery. Is it any wonder the modern day KKK rituals utilize the Betsy Ross Flag at their induction ceremonies (frequently along side the Stars and Bars of the Confederacy)? Yet, here in 2021, someone new to the neighborhood has no shame proudly displaying this symbol of hate and racism as the new "neighbors" on the street.
Which gets me to another point. Lately I have seen various Republican politicians railing against the notion of adding the District of Columbia as a State. In fact, GQP Senator Susan Collins insists the District could just be easily incorporated in the State of Maryland and they would then solve all of their arguments about "No taxation without representation" (a timeless argument made famous by the Founders of this the very USA we know and love). Except, even during my lifetime, our great flag added two stars with the additions of Hawaii and Alaska to our Union. And what about West Virginia having once separated from Virginia, or the splitting of the two Dakota Territories? I could go on and on, but you get my point. Some are even claiming the "Founders never anticipated ever having the District of Columbia admitted as a state." Except basic math illustrates that the Union had admitted 37 states since our founding. In fact, all of the States have entered the Union by a simple mechanism provided by the Framers in the Constitution itself.
Under Article IV, Section 3, CONGRESS has the authority to create the mechanisms to admit additional states. "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
How do we know this mechanism works in our "modern era?" Hawaii and Alaska were both admitted into the Union in my lifetime! Anyone who knows American history can tell you the battle to admit states in Antebellum America was solely designed to balance power between the existing slave and non-slave states. If you question this, take a closer look at the admissions of Missouri and Kansas. (See: www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/bleeding-kansas).
Now we have Republican politicians alleging that the "Filibuster must be preserved as it was called for by the Founders!" - Except it really wasn't. The Filibuster in the Senate first came into existence well after 1776, let alone 1791 when the Constitution was ratified. In fact, Alexander Hamilton (Founder and Framer frowned upon any mechanism that allowed a minority to dictate to a majority as argued in Federalist #22;
"To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a
majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number
to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching
towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its
real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy
of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an
insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and
decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies
of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government,
is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must,
in some way or other, go forward.iIf a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority,
respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done,
must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule
that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays;
continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public
good...It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the
necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor
of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.” (Emphasis added).
So if Alexander Hamilton (with the obvious concurrence of fellow Federalist author James Madison) felt a mechanism like the filibuster was contrary to democratic principles, then how in the hell do Republicans get off claiming it does? Because the Right Wind Echo chamber amplifies lies in an effort to convince constituents they alone know our history and anyone that disagrees with them is some sore of "Socialist, Commie, Anarchist" (your pick). Yet, while Republicans now claim they want to extend Civics/American History Education, one has to wonder who think think should create this "curriculum" and whom should teach it? My guess is they would prefer the guy from Texas flying the Betsy Ross flag to someone like me, an American that has been learning our real history for about 50 years! Go figure!?
As George Washington once wrote; "Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light." I wonder what other nonsense we would find once a bright light is shown on the motivations of the Republican Party.... Try to have a safe week!
RSS Feed
