by Al Benson Jr.
The so-called “reconstruction” period in the South after the War of Northern Aggression set in motion an insidious trend that has yet to be reversed in this country. That avoidable war brought monstrous federal intrusion into the private lives of individuals on a heretofore undreamed level–as it was intended to. “Reconstruction” in the South set up virtual military dictatorships in all of the (still un-surrendered) Confederate States. The banner of what today is referred to as “reverse racism” was raised atop the federal flagpole and flown on high. It has yet to be taken down.
This trend toward centralized pre-eminence (the state as god) has never been reversed. Several years ago my family and I took a trip and on the way back home we visited the National Historical Park at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. At that site the town has been in the process of being reconstructed (no pun intended) so that it will eventually appear as it did when abolitionist and terrorist John Brown first visited it. It would seem that those doing this, the National Park Service, I think, must approve of his terrorist tactics, as long as they were aimed at the South. Many claim that Harpers Ferry has been turned into a shrine for Brown, and I don’t doubt that this is the objective of all this work. Interestingly enough, they filmed segments of the movie Gods and Generals in Harpers Ferry.
While on our visit there, we chanced to visit the building that housed the Provost Marshall’s office. A lady there, dressed in the costume of the day (1859) explained to the visitors that, during the War of Northern Aggression (she didn’t use that term) Harpers Ferry was under federal jurisdiction and was, therefore, under the control of the Provost Marshall. When this lady explained what powers this man had, I could not help thinking that the Provost Marshall was, for all intents and purposes, the local federal dictator. As I pondered how the War had paved the way for future federal dictatorships–a vivid picture of the Supreme Court suddenly flashed through my mind.
Court watchers have noted, with some apprehension, some of the “interesting” decisions from our “conservative” (I use that term in the loosest possible sense) Supreme Court in recent years. There was the decision in the state of Connecticut in 2005, I think, that allowed a city to use eminent domain to attempt to seize the property of several homeowners so a shopping mall could be constructed.
George Will has never been one of my favorite columnists, but on occasion he has come up with columns that show interesting insight. Several years ago now he did a column dealing with a decision of the Supreme Court. He observed “The Court bestowed, prospectively, its constitutional imprimatur on virtually any racial spoils system Congress enacts. The court selectively overturned a series of precedents that had at least limited the proliferation of what are euphemistically called ‘race-conscious’ policies.”
In this particular instance Will noted that the court, by a 5-4 majority ruled that Congress “may assign special benefits to particular government-preferred minorities (to the detriment of all who do not make the ‘preferred’ list) and Congress may do so without regard to any injury resulting from discrimination. Reverse discrimination is now cut loose from the pretense that it is merely a remedial measure.” Go back and look at Will’s comment again. Doesn’t that give you a warm, fuzzy feeling if you happen to belong to a group that has not made the government’s “preferred” list? You’re not happy if you belong to some unpreferred group that can now be discriminated against? Well, gee, that’s tough baby–welcome to the real world of Yankee/Marxist “reconstruction.”
Some have even taken exception to court rulings of this discriminatory nature, arguing that they violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but that one was thrown out a long time ago. According to Will: “Equal protection is not violated if the injury done by reverse discrimination serves ‘an important government objective.'” How’s that for pragmatic rationale? “Equal protection” is not violated as long as “important government objectives” are being served. Question–where is this any different than what occurred during the first phase of “reconstruction” after the Marxist/Lincolnist Revolution of 1861?
To be continued.