William McKinley: Entering the World Scene

During the election of 1896, William McKinley was poised to return the republican party to the White House. All he had to do was convince voters that he a better man for the job than William Jennings Bryant.

Democrat Grover Cleveland was the last classical liberal president. Near the end of his second term, populist democrat William Jennings Bryan succeeded in transforming the democratic party from a laissez-faire/classical liberal party to being more of a big government/ liberal party.  Bryan used this platform to champion for the reinstatement of the coinage of silver.

On the other side of the ticket was William McKinley. Like Bryan, he was a successful Congressman, as his name was featured on the 1890 tariff.  And even though this tariff was partially to blame for the panic of 1893 and the depression that haunted Cleveland during his second term, it did not hamper McKinley's campaign for president.  He would go on to win the popular vote by the largest margin since the election of 1872.

Nearly as soon as McKinley was elected the depression that haunted Cleveland was over.  It should be noted here that it ended without any governmental interference. This is significant, because Cleveland was vigorously pressured to intervene, and -- unlike future presidents -- believed the market would resolve on its own.

He was right.

But it was too late to help the fortunes of the laissez-faire approach to government: the age of classical liberals had ended. Nearly every president from McKinley on would use the office of the president to expand government, even if it that meant sacrificing personal liberties at the expense of the state objective.

McKinley began this quest not by advancing a domestic agenda, but by advocating a foreign agenda.  Some actually say he was pressured into doing this by his "political cronies."  However, others say he was a "decisive president" who made decisions on his own accord.

Either way, he would lead the United States into its first international war since the War of 1812.  Spain ruled Cuba, and the Cubans wanted to gain their independence.

That aside, in 1823 James Monroe declared that no longer would the U.S. allow European governments to colonize land in the Americas.  Spain involvement in Cuba was exempted.  Just prior to the Civil War southern interests tried to get the U.S. to buy Cuba and make it a slave state.  Then the war got in the way and interests fell elsewhere.

After the war, however, American businessmen became interested in the Cuban sugar market.  By 1894, 90 percent of Cuban exports went to the U.S., and 40 percent of U.S. exports went to Cuba.  So what happened in Cuba had a significant impact on the growing American economy.

Cubans total exports to the U.S. were nearly 12 times higher than exports to Spain. So, while Spain held political authority over Cuba, economic authority belonged to the Americans.

Likewise, in order to expedite trade routes, Americans had an interest in building a channel either in Nicaragua or Panama, and they would need naval protection to get this task completed.  A rising politician by the name of Theodore Roosevelt was the Secretary of the Navy in 1897-1898, and he was an ardent supporter of war with Spain War.

This set up the stage for the Spanish-American War.  However, it was also believed the newspaper business also played a role.  To increase sales, newspaper tycoons were reporting on actual events although exaggerating them to sell newspapers.  This was dubbed as Yellow Journalism.

Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and William Randolph Hearst of the New York Journal saw a revolt that occurred in Cuba as a chance to make some flashy headlines. This sort of shaped an increasing derogatory attitude in America of the Spanish.  In fact, some found parallels between the Cuban revolt and the American Revolution.

While yellow journalism was often cited as shaping the opinion of the nation, other historians say that it was not present outside New York, and therefore should not have shaped opinion to the extend some speculate that it did.  Still, the national sentiment toward Spain was not good.

Regardless, their was a lot of pressure on the McKinley administration to take action.

At first he tried to end the situation peacefully.  He sent the USS Maine to Havana, Cuba, to maintain the safety of Americans and American interests in the area.  However, On February 15, 1898, the Maine sank after an explosion, killing 265 of the 355 on board.

McKinley called for patience.  But the media wanted nothing to do with patience.  In fact, war with Spain was exactly what the media wanted.  So, instead of reporting the truth about the sinking of the Maine -- that it remained a mystery who caused it to sink -- they reported it as a fact that Spain did it.  With such headlines as "Spanish Murderers" and "Remember The Maine," Americans were ready for war.

Such pressure made it difficult to find a peaceful solution difficult.  In the end, on April 25, 1898, Congress declared war with Spain, promising to declare independence for Cuba once the war was over.

To secure America's position, McKinley annexed Hawaii. It took only three months for America to win the war. As part of the peace treaty with Spain, Cuba was granted independence. America also ended up with the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam.  America proved it could be a powerful world presence.

Yet doing so opened the door for other problems.  For instance, almost immediately the U.S. entered into conflict with the Philippine residents who did not want to be controlled by the Americans.

McKinley didn't stop there.  He sent 2,000 troops to China to allay the Boxer Rebellion, and he intervened twice in Nicaragua to protect American interests.

So that all happened in his first term.  Just prior to the end of his first term his vice president, Garrett Hobart, died of heart failure. After his friends denied the offer, McKinley left the question of vice president open to the convention.

This is where Teddy Roosevelt comes into play again.  He was a former governor of New York, and he was a thorn in the side of the leaders of the New York republican party.  So they figured it would be a blessing if he could be the vice presidential nominee.  On the other hand, the McKinley campaign saw it as a boon to have a war hero on the ticket.

During the convention, McKinley easily won the republican nomination, mainly due to fact he was a popular war president who also presided over a booming economy.  Teddy Roosevelt was also nominated to be his vice president.

This was the last photo taken of William McKinley,
taken as he entered the Temple of Music
on September 6, 1901.

Despite high hopes, McKinley's second term didn't go so well.  Their were concerns about his safety after a series of assassinations by anarchists in Europe.  McKinley loved meeting people in public, and so he wanted nothing to do with efforts to stop meeting the public.

Despite added security, On September 5, 1901, after giving a speech before 50,000 people at the Expedition, Leon Czolgosz worked his way through the crowd, but hesitated to shoot the president out of fears he might miss.  However, the next day, Czolgosz waited at the Temple of Music as the Exposition where the president was to meet the public.  He shot the president twice in the abdomen.

As his last request, he urged his men to break the news lightly to his wife. He also urged his men to call off the mob in search of Czolgosz, a kindly action that probably saved the life of the assassin.

One bullet was found by the doctors taking care of him, but the second never was.  Even though there was a primitive x-ray machine on display at the Exposition, it was not used.  There was rising enthusiasm as the president appeared to be getting better after a few days.  But unknown to his doctors was that ganreine had grown in the walls of his stomach.  It was this gangrene that would take his life eight days after he was shot.

Roosevelt was sworn into office.  A new era in politics was born.  No longer did presidents put their country before their political ambitions.  The progressive movement was not born in that moment, but it had finally gained a podium that would allow it to grow and prosper into a full and flourishing tree.

Now, how must the legacy of William McKinley be judged.  Perhaps this is best said by the Miller Center: University of Virginia:

For a long time, William McKinley was considered a mediocre President, a chief executive who was controlled by his political cronies and who was pressured into war with Spain by the press. Recent historians have been kinder to McKinley, seeing him instead as a decisive President who put America on the road to world power. McKinley's difficult foreign policy decisions, especially his policy toward China and his decision to go to war with Spain over Cuban independence, helped the U.S. enter the twentieth century as a new and powerful empire on the world stage.

I think that quote pretty  much hits the nail on the head.  For those who are proud to see the influence of American Exceptionalism on the world stage, he is seen as a good president.  Others, not so much.

Further reading:

• University of Virginia: William McKinley
• 1896 Presidential Election
• Walter LaFeber : "Vice Presidential Nominee: Theodore Roosevelt"
• whitehouse.gov: William McKinley
• Interesting facts about William McKinley

The true story of Thanksgiving

There was no freedom of religion in the early 1600s. If you did not believe in the same religion that King James I wanted, and you worshiped God in the way you wanted instead of what King James wanted, you were treated as a common criminal. You were hunted down, put in prison, or even killed.

These individuals wanted to be left alone to worship the way they wanted, and in 1608 they moved out of their homeland of England to Holland. But there was much hardship in Holland too, so the Pilgrims decided to leave England for America. But they stopped back in England first to receive funding from the Virginia Company. Then in August of 1620, 102 Pilgrims set out for America in a ship called the Mayflower.

During the ride across the ocean much discussion ensued as to what form of government to create. While still on the Mayflower in 1620, the Mayflower Compact was signed, and one of the signers was William Bradford. The Pact said that all goods and services, and all land, would be owned by the mass community, and the profits would be doled out equally among the masses.

When they landed in November they found a land that was cold, shelter less, and not very welcoming. In fact, in that first harsh winter over half of the Pilgrims died. When Spring finally arrived, the Indians taught them how to build shelters and to plant corn, fish for cod, and skin beavers to be used as coats.

The fact that an Indian tribe, lead by Massosoit, was a blessing from God in itself, because without his blessing the other Indian tribes would have pulverised the Pilgrims. This was also a blessing because a pirate named black took advantage of his friendship and took many of his people.

They did better at this point, but things did not go as well as Bradford, the original governor of the community, had expected. He decided that while the Mayflower Pact sounded like a good idea, since no one owned anything, and there was no incentive to work more than the minimum, there were many crops that went unplanted, and much that wasn't taken care of, and productivity was very poor. People did whatever the minimum was needed of them, and then they quit. What the Pilgrims had created here was an early form of socialism.

By 1623 the harvest was so poor that starvation and death became a problem almost as bad as when the colonists first arrived. They had the know how and the potential for having good crops, but this wasn't happening.

Bradford realized this pact was not working. He wrote: "The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God." Yet he realized it did not work as expected.

Bradford decided to take an idea from the Bible. He gave every person a plot of land to take care of as their own. If they did well, they were able to keep part of the profits as an incentive to work hard. They were allowed to market and profit from what they sold. In effect, he turned loose the power of the marketplace. He created the worlds first capitalistic government.

The following harvest was abounding. It was not abounding because of help from the Indians, but because a socialistic government was replaced by a capitalistic one. On this, Bradford wrote: "This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

The Pilgrims did so well that they set up stands where they exchanged goods and services with the Indians, and they used profits from this to pay back their debt in England. In fact, the colony started to do so well economically that many Pilgrims decided to migrate to the colonies. This was called the Great Puritan Migration.

For helping them come up with a new system that worked to produce the bountiful crops, they decided to have a roast to give thanks to the Lord. There were some Indians at this celebration, but not as many as we and are kids are taught in school.

Now the Pilgrims were also thankful for the Indians for helping them and even protecting them. Yet that was not the main Intent of that celebration. The main intent was to thank God for teaching them an effective government.

The history books tell us that the first Thanksgiving was celebrated to give thanks to the Indians for helping the Pilgrims survive after that first hard winter. Sure the crops were improved that second November, but there was no celebration. There was no celebration until socialism was quashed and a capitalistic government was formed and the economy of the colony prospered. This is what the colonists celebrated on that first Thanksgiving. The date was August 9th.

However, since William Bradford's original notes were lost for many years, the story of  Indians saving colonists and this being the reason for the first Thanksgiving became common. And when Thanksgiving was made a national holiday by Congress in George Washington's first year in office, November 26 was selected as the day. And even while Bradford's journals were discovered, this false date and the false story of the first Thanksgiving were not corrected.

The unfortunate result of this fallacy not being corrected is that the lessons of Bradford were not learned. Carl Marx, Stalin, Lennon, Hitler, Mussolini, all played with various forms of socialism, and none of them worked.  Even today, in both the Europe and the United States, forms of socialism continue to exist. Perhaps if the true story of Thanksgiving were known, the failures of the past would not be repeated over and over again.

Further reading:

• Smithsonian: What as on the menu at the first Thanksgiving?

Franklin Pierce: 'Bleeding Kansas'

Okay, so Franklin Pierce installed heating in the White House and reduced the national debt.  Other than that, his inability to allay tensions between the north and the south regarding slavery make him one of the worse presidents ever.

Pierce gained notoriety as an officer in the Mexican war, and for his ability to gain support for Lewis Cass during the 1848 presidential election.

Still, when you consider potential democratic presidential nominees for 1952 were Cass, Stephen A. Douglass, and James Buchanan, Pierce was a clear underdog candidate; a clear dark horse.  Yet those leading three candidates managed to take enough votes from each other for Pierce to escape with the nomination.

He ran under the platform of ardent support for the Compromise of 1850.  This worked, because, at the time of the 1852 election, there was general calm regarding the differences between the north and the south, and the Compromise was cited as the reason.  He was also a strong supporter of slavery, and would not sign any bill that would work to the detriment of slave states.

Pierce, a democrat, narrowly defeated Whig General Winfield Scott. During his inauguration he declared an era of peace and calm.  Of course, at the present time, it was peaceful and calm in the U.S. Helping matters was that the economy was flourishing. This was significant considering the tensions that escalated prior to the signing of the Compromise of 1850.

However, early on in his presidency he hinted at the idea of expanding the borders of the United States, thereby hinting at the idea of adding slave states.  This agitated northern voters.  Adding to the tension was his support for the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  This Act was written by Stephen A. Douglas to reverse the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  The Act allowed white males in those territories to determine by popular sovereignty whether their territory would be a free or a slave state.

Douglas thought the Act would be well received because it created land for the expansion of the Transcontinental Railroad and allowed people living in the territories to decide on their own whether their state would be a free or slave state.

However, this Act completely backfired.  Instead of garnering peace, it created angst, particularly among northern free states who felt betrayed.  You see, the Missouri Compromise made Kansas a free territory, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act reversed this.

To make matters worse, in an attempt to influence how the people of Kansas would vote, both free and slave states send potential voters to that territory.  This ultimately gave rise to shootings and bloodshed, or what became known as "Bleeding Kansas" -- a prelude to the Civil War.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was therefore considered a betrayal to the north.  Northern supporters of freeing the slaves were infuriated by Pierce.  This inspired many of them to organize and form the republican party, which had a platform to stop the spread of slavery.  It quickly became the dominant party in the north.

While his term began in a state of peace, it ended with tensions growing. While he championed for peace as a result of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, his fellow democrats refused to renominate him. They turned instead to James Buchanan.

Further Reading:

• healthcare.gov: Franklin Pierce
• History Channel: Franklin Pierce

Modern Liberalism Began With Death of Kennedy

Most people do not realize this, but up until John F. Kennedy, and with a few rare exceptions (Woodrow Wilson and FDR), the democratic party was more conservative than the republican party. And, above all, most members of both parties loved, honored, and respected the United States above all else. If there was an enemy that needed to be dealt with, both parties were united in defending the nation. That all ended the day Kennedy died.

It is true that there were a rising number of liberal voices during Kennedy's term in office. Among them were Al Gore Sr. and John Kenneth Galbraith. These are people who believed in the zero sum game, that if one person or nation becomes wealthy it comes at the expense of other people and other nations. So they supported redistribution of wealth policies to share the wealth.

The say rich people, and rich corporations, as greedy. They even saw the U.S. as greedy. The reason other nations are poor is because the U.S. is hoarding all the money. They saw all evil in the world as the result of America being a bully. They believed if we scale back our military, get rid of nuclear weapons, and get rid of guns, that we wouldn't be seen as such a bully and people of other nations would love us more and peace would ensue.

This comes contrary to the traditional view of love of country and peace through strength, something Kennedy championed for. In order to win the cold war, he wanted to make America stronger and prouder. This is why he increased military spending. He believed the stronger our military is the less likely we would be to use it. And this is also why he increased federal funding of NASA and championed for a trip to the moon. He wanted to showcase to the world, to the Russians, American Exceptionalism.

He did this at a time of growing liberalism within the United States. He knew there were liberal voices in his own cabinet. In fact, he had to ignore John Kenneth Galbraith and Al Gore Sr. in pushing forth his agenda. And he succeeded. And he was very popular for his efforts, and continues to be hailed as a hero to this day, as his popularity still lingers around 80 percent. He is still ranked as one of the best presidents of all time.

But those liberal voices gained credibility the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated by a socialist by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. The moment Kennedy was pronounced dead, the liberal Lyndon Baines Johnson was sworn into office, ushering in the era of modern liberalism.This was the day the democratic party went from being a mainstream, traditional American party, to a progressive/liberal/socialist/fascist party of nutcases who blame American greed for all the evils in the world.

Look! I wrote before on this blog how the first liberal president was Teddy Roosevelt, and how the liberal movement began with Woodrow Wilson, only to be put on steroids by FDR, Johnson, and Obama. Yet, as Rush Limbaugh discussed on his program on October 19, 2015, the modern liberal movement began with the death of Kennedy.

Here is what Rush said:

 

There have been many times that people have called here and asked me, "When did this current liberalism start? Was it Woodrow Wilson?" they ask. "Was it earlier than that? Was it Civil Rights? When did this stuff all happen? When did it start? Was it the sixties? The Students for Democrat Society and the Vietnam War?" And remember my answer has always shocked people.... My answer is the incarnation of the modern left as you and I know it today is a direct result of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

And I remember the first time I mentioned this, people could not believe that I was thinking straight. "You mean to tell me, Rush, you think the modern era of liberalism began with the assassination of JFK?" Yes, it did. I'll give you a brief summary of why.

We know -- the evidence is conclusive -- that JFK was killed by a communist, Lee Harvey Oswald. He was not killed by the right wing. He was not killed by extremists in Dallas or in the South or anywhere else in this country. He was killed by a communist with ties to Cuba. Lee Harvey Oswald was an avowed socialist and communist.

He had traveled to the Soviet Union; he was disappointed. He was expecting utopia. He was flat-out disappointed with what he found, but it did not persuade him to change his thinking. He remained an ardent communist, and after his disappointment with the discoveries in Moscow, he became an acolyte of the Castro regime in Cuba. He had traveled to Mexico City in an attempt to get to Cuba. But the bottom line is... I don't know, Warren Commission.

I don't care about anybody else. But Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger. It was his gun. It was in the sixth floor window of what the Texas School Book Depository. He was nabbed. He was caught. There was no doubt Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, and he was a communist. And what the left did, is they couldn't permit that. They couldn't allow that to be popularly accepted and understood. They could not take that chance whatsoever.

So in order to create the Camelot myth and to establish Kennedy as this mythical King Arthur-type character and his administration as Camelot, there was a calculated decision among opinion leaders of the day to blame America for it, to blame American cultural decay, American extremism -- John Birch right-wingerism and so forth. And that's the birth of the modern era of liberalism, blaming America. America got the blame for killing Kennedy, not an avowed communist, because they just couldn't abide that.

There's a great book out there. The guy is at the Manhattan Institute. His name is James Piereson. His book is entitled Shattered Consensus. And there's a chapter -- actually a couple chapters -- on the Kennedy assassination.

An ardent, full blooded, full-throated communist killed JFK, and the American left power structure of the time -- including Earl Warren at the Supreme Court, the New York Times, TIME Magazine, at the time the networks, three network news anchors -- just could not deal with it. They couldn't permit that to be the truth. There was an affection for the Soviet Union at the time. There was an affection for communism. But there was also an opportunity. They saw an opportunity to do what the left does best: Blame America.

I just want to read you these two excerpts from the book Shattered Consensus... "The widespread feeling that the national culture contributed to Kennedy's death encouraged an attitude of anti-Americanism that became a pronounced aspect of the radical and countercultural movements of the 1960s." Look, the simple fact of the matter is, for the longest time people would not accept that Oswald was the killer. It was too simple.

The KGB, by the way, was paying all these conspiracy... Not all. The KGB was paying a number of so-called conspiracy authors to write these alternative theories. The American left and Soviet Union, nobody wanted communists to blame for this. If a communist had killed "the most beloved president ever," what does that say about the left? It would have destroyed the modern-day Democrat Party. They couldn't allow that to happen. They made a concerted judgment. They made an effort to actually whitewash the assassination of Kennedy and blame people who had nothing to do with it in order to save their own skin.

And their own movement and then proceeded to cover all of that up by coming up with alternate conspiracy theories and an effort to blame right-wingers, gun-control freaks, John Birchers, and, you name it. And that is what gave birth to the modern left today, rooted in America is to blame for everything that's bad -- and the top of the list is, "America killed the most popular president ever." And by "America" they mean Republicans, conservatives, anybody that's not liberal...

So... "The widespread feeling that the national culture contributed to Kennedy's death encouraged an attitude of anti-Americanism that became a pronounced aspect of the radical and countercultural movements of the sixties. This was an outlook that never entirely disappeared from the worldview of the American left.

Now, by any logic the assassination of a popular president by a communist should have generated a revulsion against everything associated with left-wing doctrines. Yet something very close to the opposite happened in the wake of the JFK assassination, and for many of the reasons outlined. Within a few years, radical ideas and revolutionary leaders -- Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Castro among them -- enjoyed a greater vogue in the US than at any previous time in our history, converting college students by the thousands to an anti-American, anti-capitalist creed. Soon, those students were taking over campuses and joining protest movements in support of a host of radical and revolutionary causes.

"Socialism and revolution -- causes that Kennedy fought against -- were the watchwords of the new left that emerged within a few years of his death."

They could not sit by and have it known in a communist had killed JFK. So they had to create other assassins. They had to create alternative conspiracy theories. Whatever else anybody did or will come up with, it is fact that Oswald pulled the trigger and killed Kennedy. And if you don't believe it, it is a sign of how effective the plan has been to get you not to know what really happened. "In just a few years, from 1963 to 1968, the liberal movement -- under pressure from this new radicalism -- absorbed a skeptical disposition toward the American past and the major institutions of American society.

"It would not be an exaggeration to label this disposition, this new attitude of the New Left, as anti-American. Among those who maintained a foothold in the liberal camp, there was a tendency to accept the left-wing assessments of American society as vulgar, violent, and racist. The radicals and the liberals might differ on style and strategy, but they agreed that real change must come about not through programmatic reforms, but through cultural criticism that leads to a revolution in thought and conduct...

"Once having accepted the claim that JFK was a victim of the national culture, many found it easy to extend that metaphor into other areas of American life, from race and poverty to the treatment of women to the struggle against communism. These were no longer seen as challenges to be met and overcome but as indictments of the nation." JFK being assassinated by a communist was an unacceptable reality to the leftists of the day who had a love affair with the Soviet Union, who had a love affair with communism as utopia, as fairness, as all of these things that they claim that it is.

It's the birthplace of Che Guevara and Castro becoming heroes, and it was more than likely Castro who engineered, however he did it, the assassination of JFK, with a supporter, Lee Harvey Oswald...

What really has happened is this country was really severely, dangerously brainwashed after the Kennedy assassination, and it continued for decades. And what's happening now is an effort to cleanse that brainwashing and to unravel it, and the left has had a lot of success with it. Blaming America. Blaming the culture. Take any incident, any incident that happens in this country today, I don't care which. Name one. Name the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin thing, Ferguson, Baltimore, a school shooting. Name a thing that happens.

Whose fault is it? "Right wing culture! America! Bigotry! It's anti-gay, sexist, racism," what have you. It all... All of this got its energetic birth immediately after the Kennedy assassination, and they had such profound success with it following the Kennedy assassination that it simply became their identity. And in their minds it has stood the test. Well, JFK today would no more identify with the modern-day Democrat Party. He was for Reagan-like tax cuts and any number of other things.

Rush said that he often gets blamed by the left for "brainwashing" people in favor of conservatism and against liberalism and socialism. Yet, in fact, he said, "it's the American media and the Democrat Party and the left that brainwashed this whole country after the Kennedy assassination."

Further reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: How the JFK Assassination Ushered in Modern Liberalism
• What is American Exceptionalism

William Buchanan: The last pro-slavery president

Without the support of northern Whigs angered by his signing the fugitive slave act, Millard Fillmore lost the 1852 election to democrat James Buchanan.  He was the 15th president of the U.S., and the last president to succeed at avoiding a Civil War.  He was also the only president to remain a lifelong bachelor.

Shortly after his inauguration, a decision was to come about regarding Dred Scott, who was suing for his right to be a free man.  Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the Dred Scott Decisions, claiming that anyone of African ancestry could never become U.S. Citizens, and could never sue in a Federal Court.  This included both slaves and free African Americans. It also ruled that Congress did not have the right to prohibit slavery in territories.  So Dred Scott remained a slave.

As a pro slavery president, Buchanan supported this decision.  This did not sit well with abolitionists in his own party, and anti-slavery republican party.

To settle disputes in Kansas, he pushed for it to enter into the union as a slave state.  But this angered republicans even more, and created a riff in his own party. His effort in this regard failed, and Kansas remained a territory.

To make matters worse in the nation, in 1858 republicans won a majority of seats in the House.  Every single bill they tried to pass met a political death in the Senate or by presidential veto.  Washington D.C. was in a complete stalemate.

Now, for his inability to avoid escalating tensions between the north and the south that would ultimately lead to the Civil War, and for his failure to stand up against slavery, he is often sited as a failed president. However, that aside, he was a classical liberal who championed for low tariffs and low taxes in order to stimulate the economy.

His democratic party was divided on slavery, and this resulted in the party dividing into southern democrats and northern democrats, and each nominated its own candidate for president: John Breckinridge and Stephen A. Douglas respectively.  The Whig party was destroyed.  This set the stage for the republican party president, Abraham Lincoln, to sneak into the office of the president.

Further reading

• PBS: Dred Scott's fight for freedom
• whitehouse.gov: James Buchanan

Trump gaining momentum, and here's why

Donald Trump was supposed to be gone by now.  Back in August fellow republicans were saying that Trump was the protest candidate, and that once the summer was over they would gravitate back to a candidate who was qualified.  They said that's what happened in 2008 when John McCain ended up getting the nomination, even though he was in third place in the polls when the primaries started.

But that doesn't seem to be the case this time.  Now we are three months later, and polls are showing that Trump is now at 42% in the polls among likely republican voters.  Why is Trump doing so well?

It's that 42% of republicans, or up to 70% of republicans if you add the polling percentages of Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson, are fed up with the republican establishment.  They do not like the fact that democrats are succeeding at advancing their progressive agenda.  They are ticked off at the fact that every republican voted into office since 2008 was supposed to stop Obama from advancing his agenda, and once they were elected they decided they needed to compromise.  They did not stop the democratic agenda. In fact, they agree with him on amnesty.  When it comes to amnesty, Jeb Bush and John Kasich are democrats.  The voters are sick of this.

The voters don't like the nuclear deal.  Republicans did not stop it.  The voters don't like Obamacare. Republicans did not stop it; have not defund it.  The voters hate amnesty. Republicans are not trying to stop it.

Republican voters gave republicans majorities in 2010 and 2014, and what good did it do. Why is Obama still able to move his agenda forward?  Who is standing in the way of Democrats? Why aren't any republican policies being pushed forth? Why have no bills to defund planned parenthood or Obamacare been placed on Obama's desk? Why is our agenda not being moved forward?

Why all the bipartisanship? Why the compromising? Why don't democrats ever compromise and allow us to move our agenda forward? Why does compromise always have to mean democrats getting what they want and us getting nothing? Why does compromise always have to mean more government?

Why not impeach Obama for his constant violations of the Constitution? Why not impeach him for his illegal executive orders?

Why is it that democrats control one chamber of Congress and they succeed in stopping republican presidents move forward their agenda, but when republicans own both they can't stop democrats?

Why? Why? Why?

So here comes Trump who says he will.  Here comes Trump who says he will put an end to Obamacare, he will stop the Iran deal, and he will fix the illegal immigration problem (the invasion) by building a way, enforcing laws, and deporting them.  He says he will do it; he will get it done.

That is why Trump is doing so well in the polls.  That is why Trump is not fading.  That is why republicans will not gravitate to another republican in name only this time like McCain or Romney.  They will not gravitate toward Jeb Bush or John Kasich.  They probably won't even gravitate to Rubio, because his immigration policy is also democrat.

Republicans have sent many candidates to Washington to stop Obama, and once they get elected they are afraid.  They are afraid of being called racist.  They are afraid of being called mean spirited.  Trump is not afraid of being called mean spirited.  He says he will do it.  The voters seem to think he will.

Millard Fillmore: A supporter of slave states

Milford Fillmore presided over Congress during the debates over the compromise of 1850.  Despite his support for it, he kept silent until only a few days prior to the death of Zachary Taylor when he told the president he would vote in favor of the bill if he was called to break a tie.  But, as it stood, Taylor was opposed to the bill, and it was not going to become law so long as he was president.

However, be it as it was, after attending a celebration on a cold day at the unfinished Washington Monument on the 4th of July in 1850, Taylor was struck with stomach cramps and died within 24 hours.  Fillmore became president, the entire staff of Taylor resigned, and were replaced with pro-slavery Whigs, including Daniel Webster as secretary of state. 

While Henry Clay wrote the original compromise, he left Washington for health reasons, leaving the bill in the hands of Stephen A. Douglas.  

With the support of the president, a compromise that now contained five bills aimed at easing tensions between the north and the south regarding slavery made its way through Congress:

• Admit California as a free state
• Settle the Texas border
• Grant territorial status to New Mexico; allow it's legislature decide status of free or slave
• Strengthen the fugitive slave law so that federal officers at the disposal of slave holders seeking to find fugitive slaves
• Abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia

Each bill passed Congress, and on September 29, 1850, all the bills were signed by Milford Fillmore.  The main problem that Taylor had with the bill was the fugitive slave act, which was an ardent violation of justice. Northern Whigs never forgave him for signing this bill, and for this reason they did not support him when he ran for re-election in 1852.  

He would end of losing the election of 1852 to democrat William Buchanan.  He would end up being the last president to be a member of any party other than democrat or republican.  

Further reading:

• whitehouse.gov: Millard Fillmore  
• The Compromise of 1850