Tories, Luddites and Liberals

Look it up: Tories, Luddites and Liberals have been on the wrong side of every important historical issue. From the American Revolution to the Industrial Revolution to Slavery and Civil Rights: Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Tories -- American Revolutionary Tories, to be precise -- liked to call themselves Loyalists. These were colonists who didn’t mind how badly they were mistreated by a Monarchy some 3,000 miles away; most of them were either employed by or in some way connected to the British Crown. And besides, we could never win, anyway, (sound familiar?) So, they wrote songs, distributed pamphlets, and quoted foreign philosophes to condemn the "upstart rebellion," but soon escalated to acts of torture, murder, arson, sabotage, and plunder. There were even Tory militias, which sided with the British. As you can imagine, their actions were viewed as treasonous betrayals by their countrymen, and a great many of the “Loyalists” ended up fleeing for their lives to Canada.

Today there remains a great many “modern American Tories” who wish the United States were more like Europe in everything from fashion to mannerisms to politics, the latter of which has occasionally resulted in plaintive threats to flee to Canada should their fellow liberal or Democratic candidates not be elected to lead the government. Alas, these have almost always proved to have been merely another empty gesture from the Left.

Luddites, as we all know, are associated with those who fear industrial or technological advancement (in spite of any improvements they bring). The original Luddites were weavers in the English town of Nottingham who felt that their livelihoods were threatened by the stocking frame and the power loom, devices which increased textile efficiency, if not quality. The Luddites rose up and organized, breaking into factories and destroying the infernal contraptions -- usually under cover of night. Their rebellion spread, and soon mobs were roaming the countryside, wreaking havoc on the factories and the factory owners who used this new technology instead of the weavers and croppers (cloth finishers). Some have identified this period and these events as a precursor to modern day labor unions, labeling it “collective bargaining by riot.” The British government eventually contained the unrest and many Luddites were convicted, imprisoned, exiled to Australia, or hanged. A similar uprising occurred in 1830 when English farm workers began destroying threshing machines.

In the end, of course, technological and scientific advancements have made our lives infinitely better, however, these advancements have been unable to quell the impotent rage of those who oppose progress, most of whom can be identified, ironically enough, as members of the so-called “Progressive” movement.

Which brings us to Liberals.

The American Heritage Dictionary tells us that “liberalism” is a political theory founded on the “natural goodness” of humanity, and any number of sources will define liberalism as a political philosophy that considers individual liberty as the most important goal. That’s all well and good, but in many respects these notions are “old-school” and are difficult to reconcile with the realities of modern liberal thought. Today’s Liberal adheres less to the ideal of small government and individual responsibility and more toward a socialistic version of liberalism. The “new” liberalism -- having taken root over the last 75 years, or so -- subscribes to a “Big Government” worldview of more State and Federal enterprises (read: “entitlement” programs and subsidies) supported by a heavier and more “progressive” tax system to support them.

This “Social Liberalism” is the prevailing school of thought inherent in today’s Liberal and is the cornerstone of their effort to remake American society. These are the people and the movement to which I refer when I talk about Liberals.

Interestingly enough, the word “liberal” comes to us from the Latin word liber, meaning “free, not slave.” Slavery has been around for longer than there has been written history, and certainly predates the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC), which refers to slavery as an already established institution (though not a peculiar institution). Slavery is known to have existed in ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, and the Islamic Caliphate. The Spartans had slaves, as did the Vikings and the Mongols. The Germans, the Turks, the Africans and the Spanish all had slaves. In fact, enslavement of our fellow man was pervasive throughout the known world -- St. Patrick himself was sold as a slave, as were Hagar, Aesop, and Frederick Douglass.

Owing to its relative youth, the United States had a much shorter experience with slavery, though no less heinous than most countries. Jamestown, founded in 1607 and commonly referred to as the first permanent settlement in the U.S., received 20 Africans as indentured servants in 1619. By 1642, Massachusetts became the first colony to legalize slavery. In 1705, Virginia made it government policy that any imported servant be categorized as “slave,” and that all persons of color be considered real estate as opposed to human beings. Although slavery insinuated itself into American culture, eventually there appeared a “clash of conscience,” whereby some began to question the morality of it. Indeed, the Founding Fathers were torn on the subject; the southern states would not consider, under any circumstances, the abolition of the practice, and warned that they would not join the northern colonies in the War of Independence were it a consideration in their colonial alliance (a scene replayed some 90 years later in the Civil War). Ultimately, and sadly, the decision was left to a later time, but in 1787 the Continental Congress did enact the Northwest Ordinance -- also known as The Freedom Ordinance -- which prohibited slavery north of the Ohio River.

The “slavery question” came more and more into play as territories were considered for admittance to the Union. Southern states, in which one family in four were slave-owners, realized that the power of their representation in Congress would wane as more and more territories joined the Union as “free states.” Once again, they contemplated secession, and when Confederate forces fired on the federal military installation at Ft. Sumter, their decision was clear. The war would last four years and claim over 600,000 American lives. Out of this greatest American tragedy, however, came the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment, which effectively ended government-sanctioned slavery in the United States.

Although freed, former slaves and their descendants were treated like second class citizens for decade upon decade to come. Lynchings, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and any number of other attempts to bully and humiliate the black man continued, largely unabated, until well into the 20th century. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, established to prohibit discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, effectively invalidated Jim Crow laws and outlawed segregation. It is interesting to note that although the Democrats controlled both the House (60% Democrat) and the Senate (67%), only about two-thirds of Democrats supported passage of the bill, with many so-called “Southern Democrats” doing everything they could to derail it or bury it. Conversely, more than 80% of Republicans (whose Party was formed in 1854 to promote the abolition of slavery) voted “Yes” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights bill into law on July 2nd, 1964, he allegedly told an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation.” Who is the “we” he refers to?

I’ve gone into some detail regarding slavery and civil rights -- with much, much more to come later -- because these struggles are perhaps the most profound example of the hypocrisy of the Liberal class. I will also demonstrate how the Left, as a group, have been able to not only get away with ignorant and ill-conceived behavior but also to thrive politically with little or no ramifications. It is my intention to show the many different levels of their deceit, their complicity in steering public policy in harmful directions, the irony in how they are perceived by the general public, and the forces behind the grooming and management of that façade. In other words, I intend to shine a little light, i.e. Facts, Reason and Logic, on what has been and continues to be a dangerous threat to the fabric of our republic.