Commentaries appear at regular intervals. If you would like an invited commentary for your publication, please let me know!

A disturbing similarity to the Democrat's plan for the South in 1877

What happened to the south after the Civil War has mostly been lost in US history classes. Once the Civil War ends most classrooms jump to either the Spanish-American War, the Indian Wars or the Teapot-Dome scandal. Very little is said about how the blacks in the South were abandoned.

Let me set up the scenario for you: a contentious race for President had resulted in a virtual tie. The Democrats, while slightly ahead in the popular vote were willing to make a deal to allow the Republican candidate to take office. The bargain required the Republicans to end "reconstruction" of the South and remove all Federal troops from southern states.

The deal was made and Democrats resumed control of the South. As you can imagine there were hard feelings among those who had lost control over the former slaves and had to watch them vote (and even be elected) under the protection of Republicans backed by Federal troops. Democrats soon put an end to black voting through intimidation, violence, poll taxes, poll tests and other means of suppressing civil rights in the South. It would be over a century before full voting rights were restored to the blacks living in the south, and even longer before Republicans were again elected with the resumption of fair elections.

I am sure that many people felt that their fellow Americans would act in good faith in the South, but the results were the virtual re-enslavement of blacks, only this time economically instead of with physical restraints. Indeed, many southern Democrats proudly declared that they would vote for a "yellow dog" before they would ever allow a Republican back into office—meaning blacks and their northern supporters. It was a tragic situation made possible because Democrats contended that the Federal involvement in the south was too contentious, too disruptive and that America needed to take a different path instead of continuing the "occupation" of the South by Federal forces.

Today we have similarly contested election. The Democrat, John Kerry, has indicated that he is going to strike a similar deal over Iraq. He will remove US forces from the area, which in effect will allow the despots to resume the subjugation of the oppressed Iraqi people. Will it be another century before the Iraqis reclaim their rights and a democracy if John Kerry wins? Only time will tell, but as a historian, I feel the similarities between the two scenarios are very disturbing indeed. Do we really want to be party to the re-enslavement of a people just because we think it is "easier" than spending the time, money and lives to ensure peace and freedom with our military forces?

I do not know about you, but I refuse to be part of an effort to send any population back into slavery.

Very little is said about how the blacks in the South were abandoned.

The deal was made and Democrats resumed control of the South.

It would be over a century before full voting rights were restored to the blacks living in the south.

I refuse to be part of an effort to send any population back into slavery.