King Alfred Press

Home » Posts tagged 'American history'

Tag Archives: American history

CONSERVATISM IN AMERICA

reaganatnewyorkprimary-590e4a6a3df78c928327d1b9

Conservatism is a strong force in American politics and society. It has helped shape and define America’s political and social landscape. This essay explores the concept and parameters of conservatism in America. It will conclude by stating that conservatism has had an impact on American society and politics and has affected the way in which America thinks about itself. The first paragraph will cover the history and philosophy surrounding conservatism. This will include the definition of conservatism, its influences, and beliefs. The second paragraph will explore conservatism in America, including its historical and political implications.

As a political ideology, conservatism has a complicated and ambiguous nature, encompassing a broad range of ideas, beliefs, and concepts. In terms of ideology, conservatives are well known for seeing change with weariness at best and complete disdain at worst. It is well known that many conservatives cling blindly to the past.  It should be noted, however, that conservatives do not necessarily oppose all change. Conservatives oppose change which they see as threatening to the moral and social fabric of society. This is because conservatives which to protect society’s institutions, traditions, and moral framework.

According to Andy Stern, the former President of the Service Employees International Union, conservatives come with five characteristics. First, conservatives appreciate the need for fiscal balance. To this end, they are generally concerned about overspending, budget deficits, and so forth. Second, conservatives understand people’s romanticism with the concepts of hard work, personal responsibility, and see the Government as lacking understanding in this matter. Third, conservatives are suspicious of big government which they do not necessarily see as the solution to major problems. Fourth, conservatives are strong supporters of private sector growth which they see it as solving problems better than the Government. Fifth, conservatives are, likewise, strong supporters of small business.

Furthermore, conservatism comes with numerous advantages. Gary Jacobsen, a political scientist at the University of California, came up with several strengths of genuine conservatism. First, conservatives acknowledge materialisms role in encouraging particular forms of behaviour. To this end, conservatives are suspicious of bureaucracy which they see as stifling of this simple fact. Second, conservatives view with disdain the idea that social science theories can be applied to real-world problems. Third, conservatives value personal autonomy and freedom very highly. They realise that it is the individual that helps build and improve a society, not governments. Fourth, conservatives believe in good parenting having realised that good citizenry starts in the home.  Fifth, conservatives believe in the superiority of the market system which they feel encourages more efficient use of resources. It would be foolish to place conservatism or conservatives into the category of simplicity. In fact, conservatism is a complicated political ideology with a history and philosophy more complex than may initially meet the eye.

Conservatism in America has had a long and varied history and impact on American society and politics. A series of essays known as the Federalist Papers, written between 1787 and 1788, serves as a strong influence of conservative thought in America. Federalist Ten by James Madison, for instance, was written to create awareness of the issues surrounding factionalism and insurrection in the union. In Madison’s own words: “no man is allowed to judge his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” However, conservatism in America differs greatly from many other parts of the world. Because America is a relatively young country their conservatism is based on people’s personal values rather than on social class.

In fact, American conservatism is based on four distinct pillars. The first pillar is freedom based on the notions of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, religious and economic liberty. The second pillar is tradition. As mentioned previously, conservatives are strong supporters oppose change which threatens the established social exoskeleton. The third pillar is the rule of law. The fourth pillar is a strong belief in God.

Politically, conservatism has had a strong influence on American society. Take conservative President Ronald Reagan, for example. In his eight years in office, between 1981 and 1989, Reagan strengthened the American economy by curbing inflation, stimulating economic growth, and increasing employment. He exempted many low-income people from paying income tax through his income tax reform.

Today, the Republican Party consists of a mix of libertarians, neoconservatives, and the Christian Right. As a result, these groups have become a powerful force in American politics. Conservatism in America is more value-based than ideological in nature. It represents who identify strongly with America’s philosophical past and view with suspicion any attempts to alter this system.

As a social and political force, conservatism has had a great impact on American politics and society. The first paragraph explored the history and philosophy surrounding conservatism as an ideology. In this paragraph, it was found that conservatism incorporates a broad range of ideas, beliefs and concepts, and that conservatives value society’s institutions, traditions, and moral framework. The second paragraph explored conservatism in America more specifically. It looked specifically at the history of American conservatism using Federalist Ten by James Madison as an example and discussed how American conservatism differs from conservatism in other parts of the globe. Finally, it focused on Ronald Reagan’s Presidency and the nature of conservative politics today. In conclusion, one would be hard-pressed to argue that conservatism has not had an impact on American. It could be argued that, to an extent, the very way in which Americans view themselves can be attributed, in part at least, to the influence conservatism has had.

Bibliography

  1. Alan Brinkley, ‘the Problem of American Conservatism”, the American Historical Review 99 no. 2 (April 1994), pp. 409 – 429
  2. Alfred S. Regerney, The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism (Spring 2012), First Principles ISI Web Journal, Delaware, available at: http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1813. [accessed 15/04/2015]
  3. David Barstow, ‘Tea Party Movement Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right’, the New York Times, 15/2/2010
  4. Frank Freidel and Hugh Sidey, Ronald Reagan (2006), the White House, Washington D.C, available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/ronaldreagan [accessed 15/04/2015]
  5. James Madison, ‘The Federalist Ten: the Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)’, Daily Advertiser, 22/11/1787
  6. John Mickelthwait and Adrian Wooldridge, ‘Introduction’ in, The Right Nation: Conservative Power in Amerce (Penguin, 2004)
  7. Liliana Mihut, ‘Two Faces of American Pluralism: Political and Religious’, Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 11 no. 33 (Winter 2012), pp. 39 – 61
  8. Thomas B. Edsay, ‘What the Right Gets Right’, The New York Times: Campaign Stops: Strong Opinion on the 2012 Election, 15/1/2012
  9. Thomas Turnstall Allcock, ‘America’s Right: Anti-Establishment Conservatism from Goldwater to the Tea Party’, European Review of History: Revue Européenne d’Historie 21 no. 6 (2014), pp. 937 – 939
  10. Bradford Littlejohn, Three Things Conservatives Could Learn from Richard Hooker (February 2014), John Jay Institute: Center for a Just Society, available at: http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/three-things-conservatives-could-learn-from-richard-hooker/ [Accessed 15/04/2015]
  11. Wendy Dackson, ‘Richard Hooker and American Religious Liberty’, Journal of Church and State 41 No. 1 (1999), pp. 117 – 138
  12. Zelizer, J.E., 2010. Rethinking the History of American Conservatism. Reviews in American History. 38 (2), pp. 367 – 392

THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC

men_outside_bldg

This is our weekly theological article.

If there is any philosophical or moral principle that can be credited with the prosperity of the Western capitalist societies it would have to be the Protestant work ethic. This ethic asserts that a person’s success in this life is a visible sign of their salvation in the next. As a result, the Protestant work ethic encourages hard work, self-reliance, literacy, diligence, frugality, and the reinvestment profits.

Prior to the Reformation, not much spiritual stock was placed on labour. The Roman Catholic Church placed more value on monastic prayer than on manual labour. Much would change when the German monk, Martin Luther (1483 – 1546), nailed his ninety-five theses on the door of the All Saint’s Church in Wittenberg. Luther railed against the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences as a way of avoiding purgatorial punishment. Luther asserted faith over work believing that a person could be set right with God through faith alone. It was Luther’s opinion that an individual should remain in the vocation God had called them to and should work to earn an income, rather than the accumulation of wealth. This belief stood in stark contrast to the Catholic Church’s philosophy that relief from eternal torment came from Godly rewards for good works. By contrast, the second great Protestant, John Calvin (1509 – 1564), believed that faith and hard work were inextricably linked. Calvin’s theory came from his revolutionary idea of predestination, which asserted that only certain people were called into grace and salvation. It is from this that the Protestant work ethic is borne.

As a consequence, many Protestants worked hard to prove to themselves that they had been preselected for a seat in heaven. A result of this extreme predilection towards hard-work was an increase in economic prosperity.

The French sociologist, Emile Durkheim (1858 – 1917), believed that capitalism was built on a system that encouraged a strong work ethic and delayed gratification. Similarly, the German sociologist, Max Weber (1864 – 1920), argued in The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) that America’s success boiled down to the Protestant work ethic. It was asserted as the key idea that would encourage individuals to move up the social ladder and achieve economic independence. Weber noted that Protestants – particularly Calvinists, were largely responsible for early twentieth-century business success.

The Protest work ethic is credited with the United States’ economic and political rise in the 19th and 20th centuries. As the political scientist, Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859), wrote in Democracy in America (1835):

“I see the whole destiny of America contained in the first Puritan who landed on its shore. They will to their descendants the most appropriate habits, ideas, and mores to make a republic.”

A study in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology found that nations with a majority Protestant population enjoyed higher rates of employment. The economist, Horst Feldman, analysed data from eighty countries and found that countries with majority Protestant populations – America, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway – had employment rates six-percent higher than countries where other religious beliefs were practised. (Furthermore, the female employment rate in Protestant countries is eleven-percent higher). Feldman explained how the legacy of Protestantism led to increased prosperity:

“In the early days, Protestantism promoted the virtue of hard and diligent work among its adherents, who judged one another by conformity to this standard. Originally, an intense devotion to one’s work was meant to assure oneself that one was predestined for salvation. Although the belief in predestination did not last more than a generation or two after the Reformation, the ethic of work continued.”

The Protestant work ethic is one of those Christian ideas that have helped create Western capitalist democracies in all their glory. It is yet another example of the influence that Christianity has had on the modern world.

CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS

maxresdefault

Next Monday will mark fifty-five years since the Cuban Missile Crisis. For thirteen days, the world held its collective breath as tensions between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics reached boiling point. Whoever averted the crisis would be glorified in the annals of history, whoever escalated it would be responsible for the annihilation of life on earth.

Our story begins in July, 1962, when Cuban dictator Fidel Castro (1926 – 2016) and Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev (1894 – 1971) came to a secret agreement to deter another US-backed invasion attempt (the US had previously backed the disastrous Bay of Pigs operation, and were planning another invasion called ‘Operation Mongoose’) by planting nuclear missiles on Cuban soil. On September 4th, routine surveillance flights discovered the general build-up of Soviet arms, including Soviet IL-28 bombers. President John F. Kennedy (1917 – 1963) issued a public warning against the introduction of offensive weapons in Cuba.

Another surveillance flight on October 14th discovered the existence of medium-range and immediate range ballistic nuclear weapons in Cuba. President Kennedy met with his advisors to discuss options and direct a course of action. Opinions seemed to be divided between sending strong warnings to Cuba and the Soviet Union and using airstrikes to eliminate the threat followed by an immediate invasion. Kennedy chose a third option. He would use the navy to ‘quarantine Cuba’ – a word used to legally distinguish the action from a blockade (an act of war).

kennedy-khrushchev-pKennedy then sent a letter to Khrushchev stating that the US would not tolerate offensive weapons in Cuba and demanded the immediate dismantling of the sites and the return of the missiles to the Soviet Union. Finally, Kennedy appeared on national television to explain the crisis and its potential global consequences to the American people. Directly echoing the Monroe doctrine, he told the American people: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.” The Joint Chief of Staff then declared a military readiness level of DEFCON 3.

On October 23rd, Khrushchev replied to Kennedy’s letter claiming that the quarantining of Cuba was an act of aggression and that he had ordered Soviet ships to proceed to the island. When another US reconnaissance flight reported that the Cuban missile sites were nearing operational readiness, the Joint Chiefs of Staff responded by upgrading military readiness to DEFCON 2. War involving Strategic Air Command was imminent.

On October 26th, Kennedy complained to his advisors that it appeared only military action could remove the missiles from Cuba. Nevertheless, he continued to pursue a diplomatic resolution. That afternoon, ABC News correspondent, John Scali (1918 – 1995), informed the White House that he had been approached by a Soviet agent who had suggested that the Soviets were prepared to remove their missiles from Cuba if the US promised not to proceed with an invasion. The White House scrambled to determine the validity of this offer. Later that evening, Khrushchev sent Kennedy a long, emotional message which raised the spectre of nuclear holocaust and suggested a resolution similar to that of the Soviet agent: “if there is no intention to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie the knot. We are ready for this.”

Hope was short-lived. The next day Khrushchev sent Kennedy another message demanding the US remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey as a part of any resolution. That same day, a U2 Spy Plane was shot down over Cuba.

Kennedy and his advisors now planned for an immediate invasion of Cuba. Nevertheless, slim hopes for a diplomatic resolution remained. It was decided to respond the Khrushchev’s first message. In his message, Kennedy suggested possible steps towards the removal of the missiles from Cuba, suggested the whole business take place under UN supervision, and promised the US would not invade Cuba. Meanwhile, Attorney General Robert Kennedy (1925 – 1968) met secretly with the Soviet Ambassador to America, Anatoly Dobrynin (1919 – 2010). Attorney General Kennedy indicated that the US was prepared to remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey but that it could not be part of any public resolution.

On the morning of October 28th, Khrushchev issued a public statement. The Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba would be dismantled and returned to the Soviet Union. The United States continued its quarantine of Cuba until the missiles had been removed, and withdrew its Navy on November 20th. In April 1963, the US removed its Jupiter missiles from Turkey. The world breathed a sigh of relief.

The Cuban Missile Crisis symbolises both the terrifying spectre of nuclear holocaust, and the power of diplomacy in resolving differences. By forming an intolerable situation, the presence of nuclear weapons forced Kennedy and Khrushchev to favour diplomatic, rather than militaristic, resolutions. In the final conclusion, it must be acknowledged that nuclear weapons, and the knowledge and technology to produce them, will always exist. The answer, therefore, cannot be to rid the world of nuclear weapons but learn to live peacefully in a world that has them.

THE NIGHT THEY DROVE OLD DIXIE DOWN

article-2203885-14fdc3ce000005dc-701_634x515

This week for our cultural article we will be examining The Band‘s 1969 folk-rock song, The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down.

BACKGROUND

Rolling Stone magazine has described The Band as a group that “linked American folklore to primal myths.” They were founded in 1958 when Ronnie Hawkins (1935 – ) formed a backing band that would become known as Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks. The first future Band member to join would be drummer Levon Helm (1940 – 2012).

Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks toured the American south. This was followed by a tour of Ontario, Canada.  While in Canada, Willard Jones departed and Ronnie Hawkins was forced to hire a new pianist. He found one in Scott Cushnie. However, Cushnie would only agree to join if Hawkin’s hired Robbie Robertson (1943 – ) as well. Reluctantly, Hawkins agreed, and Robertson replaced Jimmy Evans on bass. After a short while, Robertson would be moved to rhythm guitar, playing behind Fred Carter’s (1933 – 2010), and, briefly, Roy Buchanan’s ((1939 – 1988)) lead.

In 1961, Rick Danko (1943 – 1999) joined Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks on bass. This was followed by the arrival of Garth Hudson (1937), a classically trained organ player who could read music.

1959 to 1963 were Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks glory years. Hawkins himself even sported a quasi-Elvis like quality. However, he was also quickly becoming the odd man out in the group. By the summer of 1963, Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks had parted ways.

Following Hawkin’s departure, The Hawks selected Levon Helm to be their frontman and renamed themselves, alternatively, Levon and the Hawks, and Canadian Squires.

It was their work as Bob Dylan’s (1941 – ) backing band that first brought The Band to attention. The group had first been introduced to Dylan by blues singer, John Hammond, Jr. (1942 – ). Initially, Dylan only hired Helm and Robertson but was quickly encouraged to hire the rest of the group, as well.

With Dylan, The Band was forced to reconcile themselves with a new kind of music and a new type of audience. With Ronnie Hawkins, they had played as a tightly formed musical unit playing rhythm and blues-based rock. Their chief influences were the music put out by Chess Records in Chicago and Sun Records in Memphis. Most of their audiences were interested in having a good time. With Dylan, on the other hand, they were forced to adapt to electric adaptations of folk songs to audiences who seemed determined to reject them, if only on principle.

In October of 1967, the group had been writing their own songs. They were signed to Capitol Records and adopted the name, The Band. Their first album was 1968’s, Music From Big Pink. Their first album, 1968’s Music From Big Pink, managed to gain a mystique similar to albums like Beggar’s Banquet (1968) and Abbey Road (1969).

Between 1969 and 1975, The Band enjoyed great influence and popularity. They followed their first album with 1969’s The Band. This was followed by Stage Fright in 1970. Later that year, The Band would tour with Janis Joplin (1943 – 1970) and The Grateful Dead on the Festival Express Canadian concert tour.

Unfortunately, cracks were already beginning to appear with The Band‘s framework. Robbie Robertson was exerting greater control of the group. Helm argued that Robertson was being authoritarian and greedy, but Robertson justified himself by arguing that Helm, Danko, and Richard Manuel’s (1943 – 1986) heroin usage were making them increasingly more unreliable. Despite their troubles, The Band released Cahoots in 1971. This was followed by the live album Rock of Ages. In 1973, The Band released Moondog Matinee.

On November 25th, 1976, The Band gave their final farewell performance. The concert, which would later be dubbed The Last Waltz, would feature guests Joni Mitchell (1943 – ), Ronnie Hawkins, Bob Dylan, Muddy Waters (1913 – 1983), Dr. John (1940 – ), Van Morrison (1945 – ), Ringo Starr (1940 – ), Eric Clapton (1945 – ), Ronnie Wood (1947 – ), Bobby Charles (1938 – 2010), Neil Diamond (1941 – ),  and Paul Butterfield (1942 – 1987).

The Band released their final album, Islands, in 1977 and disbanded later that year.

LYRICS

mi0000720925

Virgil Caine is the name and I served on the Danville train
‘Til Stoneman’s cavalry came and tore up the tracks again.
In the winter of ’65, we were hungry, just barely alive.
By May the tenth, Richmond had fell,
It’s a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the bells were ringing.
The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the people were singing,
They went, “La, la, la”

Back with my wife in Tennessee,
When one day she called to me:
“Virgil, quick, come see, there goes Robert E.Lee.”
Now I don’t mind choppin’ wood
And I don’t care if the money’s no good.
You take what ya need and you leave the rest,
But they should never have taken the very best.

The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the bells were ringing.
The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the people were singing,
They went, “La, la, la”

Like my father before me, I will work the land.
And like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand.
He was just eighteen, proud and brave
But a Yankee laid him in his grave.
I swear by the mud below my feet
You can’t raise a Caine back up when he’s in defeat

The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the bells were ringing.
The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the people were singing,
They went, “La, la, la”

The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the bells were ringing.
The night they drove old Dixie down,
And the people were singing
They went, “La, la, la”

INTERPRETATION

richmond_virginia_damage

The story of The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down begins in August of 1968 when Robbie Robertson was inspired to write a song about the “beautiful sadness” of the South. The finished song would appear on The Band‘s self-titled second album: a concept album that used people, places, and traditions within Americana as musical themes.

The song is set to the backdrop of the American Civil War (1861 – 1865). In his book, American Oracle, historian David Blight (1949 – ), explained how the Civil War helped define the United States’ self-conception:

“For reasons explored in this work and elsewhere, the American Civil War has been forever an event that for reasons explored in this work and elsewhere, the American Civil War has been forever an event that fiercely resists popular consensus about its causes and consequences; despite voluminous research and overwhelming scrutiny, it remains the mythic national epic. As a broad culture, Americans seem incapable of completely shucking this event from its protective shells of sentimentalism, romance,  and pathos in order to see to its heart of tragedy. It might be argued that this is rightly so with national epics—they should or can never be utterly deromanticized. Or it might be argued that such epics are also dangerous to national self-understanding, to a healthy, informed confrontation with the meaning of the most important elements of our past, and therefore the imperatives of the present.  Modern nations are and always have been built upon their narratives of origin and development, and in this case, of destruction and rebirth. This study of the Civil War’s literary and intellectual history,  as well as its popular memory, engages the compelling question of how the United States, to an important degree, is the stories it tells itself about its Civil War and its enduring aftermath.”

This setting, of course, is a large part of the song’s appeal. Music journalist, Greil Marcus (1945 – ) wrote in his book, Mystery Train, that The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down had less to do with the Civil War itself and more to do with “the way each American carries a version of that event within himself.” Marcus went on to write:

“It is hard for me to comprehend how any Northerner, raised on a very different war than Virgil Kane’s,  could listen to this song without finding himself changed. You can’t get out from under the singer’s  truth—not the whole truth, but his truth—and the little autobiography closes the gap between us.  The performance leaves behind a feeling that for all our oppositions, every American still shares this old event; because to this day none of us has escaped its impact, what we share is an ability to respond to a story like this one.

Similarly, Rolling Stone‘s Ralph J. Gleason  (1917 – 1975) wrote that the song echoed Robert Penn Warren’s (1905 – 1989) sentiment of the Civil War as “history lived in our national imagination”:

“Nothing I have read … has brought home the overwhelming human sense of history that this song does.  The only thing I can relate it to at all is The Red Badge of Courage. It’s a remarkable song, the  rhythmic structure, the voice of Levon and the bass line with the drum accents and then the heavy  close harmony of Levon, Richard and Rick in the theme, make it seem impossible that this isn’t some  traditional material handed down from father to son straight from that winter of 1865 to today. It has  that ring of truth and the whole aura of authenticity.”

The Band‘s The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down demonstrates how music and words can be used to give meaning and depth to a nation’s historical experiences.

WAR ON CONFEDERATE STATUES CONTINUES

an128246260in-this-photo-ta

The hard left’s continued war against American culture and history continues with their ongoing war against Confederate monuments.

A memorial to Thomas Jefferson will receive an update which will reflect his complexity as both a founding father and a slave owner.  Similarly, in Virginia, ten-thousand people have voted to replace a statue in Olde Town Portsmouth with one of Missy Elliott. The petition read:

“Hailing from humble beginnings as the only child of a power company dispatcher and a welder at Portsmouth’s lauded naval shipyard, she rose to become a platinum recording artists with  over 30 million albums sold. All this without even once owning a slave. Together we can put  white supremacy down, flip it and reverse it.”

In Texas, twenty-five-year-old Andrew Schneck has been arrested for attempting to blow a Confederate statue. He was discovered with two boxes, duct tape, wires, and a bottle of liquids comprised of compounds used as explosives.

The Democrat Senator from Virginia, Tim Kaine, has expressed the opinion that Confederate statues ought to be replaced with statues of Pocahontas. Kaine explains:

“I think as you look at the scope of Virginia history here in 2017 and if you want there to  be two people to really stand for who Virginia is, why wouldn’t you think about Pocahontas,  who had she not saved John Smith’s life, we wouldn’t be here possibly.”

Jeh Johnson has referred to Conderdate monuments as “rallying points for white nationalism, for neo-nazis, and for the KKK” on ABC’s This Week.  Johnson said:

“President Trump said this week that Jefferson and Washington were slave owners, where does it stop? Where does it end? I think most Americans understand, most African-Americans understand that many of the founders of our nation were slave owners. But most of us are not advocating that we take them off the currency or drop Washington’s name from the nation’s  capital. I have first cousins, cousins whose names are Washington. They’re not changing their names. They’re proud of their name.”

He continued:

“What alarms so many of us from a security perspective is that so many of the statues, the  Confederate monuments are now modern-day becoming symbols and rallying points for white nationalism, for neo-Nazis, for the KKK. This is most alarming. We fought a world war against  Nazism. The KKK rained terror on people for generations. People are alarmed. I salute those in cities and states taking down monuments for reasons of public safety and security. That’s not a matter of political correctness. It’s a matter of public safety and Homeland Security and  doing what’s right.”

Slavery was a blight on American history and should rightly be condemned. However, removing Confederate monuments or attempting to rewrite or ignore history is not the answer. History should not be censored, but rather should be studied and learnt from.