Democrats Abandoning History, Dropping Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson

Race conscience Democrats are scrubbing Jefferson and Jackson but what about their recent “heroes”?

Ryan S. Walters | @ryanswalters73


The Democratic Party of Connecticut became the latest to throw Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson overboard, following Missouri and probably a whole host of others before long.  It has been a longstanding Democratic tradition, going back to the 19th century, to host annual Jefferson-Jackson Day fundraising dinners, attended by the party bigwigs.


Being the keynote speaker at a state Jefferson-Jackson Dinner is one of the highlights for any Democratic politician.


But now, in the aftermath of the Charleston massacre and with pressure from NAACP groups, Democrats are dropping their historic heroes.

Why are they doing this?  Is it really about the shooting, or is there a deeper, more underlying reason?

The real reason is not about race or any hostility to Jefferson and Jackson as slave owners or racists (even though such a stance was held by most everyone in that day and age), but it’s the limited government principles both men held.  The Democratic Party can trace its heritage to Thomas Jefferson, who was hostile to the very idea of activist government, but today is the complete antithesis of Jeffersonian doctrine.  So there is where the real hostility lies.

In his inaugural address, given March 4, 1801, President Jefferson defined what he called the “essential principles of our Government,” a far cry from what the modern Democratic Party adheres to:

“Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies; the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened; the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected.”

To break this down into modern terminology, Jeffersonian philosophy adheres to limited government, federalism, economy and accountability, sound money, low taxes and tariffs, no national debt, strict construction of the Constitution, protection of civil liberties, a strong national defense, and a non-interventionist foreign policy.  None of this applies to Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, or Bernie Sanders.

Andrew Jackson, although not a Jeffersonian in the strictest sense, held a conservative philosophy of government as well.  He vetoed wasteful spending bills, especially those aimed at providing federal funds for construction projects in individual states; defied the Supreme Court; and killed the Second Bank of the United States, a predecessor to the Federal Reserve. And his foreign policy, backed by his strong will and love of country, was the complete opposite of Obama.

So what will their annual dinner be called now?  The FDR Dinner?  No, he interred Japanese citizens in concentration camps and turned his back on blacks in the South to get his New Deal program through Congress.

How about the Woodrow Wilson Dinner?  No, he was a notorious racist and segregationist who loved the movie “Birth of a Nation” with its glorification of the KKK, and once signed a law making racial mixing a felony in DC.

The Truman Dinner?  No, he nuked Japan and said a lot of unkind things about blacks and other races, like this hair-raising gem: “I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n****r or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n****r from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.”

JFK?  No, he was very slow on Civil Rights and did not really like Martin Luther King, Jr. very much.

LBJ perhaps?  No, he’s on record using the n-word on the phone in the White House and has a racist, segregationist past.  He only pushed civil rights and voting rights for political expediency.

How about the George Wallace Dinner?  No, he was for “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”

Jimmy Carter?  No, he race-baited his campaign for governor of Georgia in 1970.

The Bill Clinton Dinner?  No, he once said of Obama, “a few years ago this guy would be carrying our bags.”

What about Harry Reid?  No, he said Obama was a “light skinned” black guy who spoke “with no Negro dialect.” Unlike the rest of his race, I suppose.

The Biden Dinner? No, he’s said a lot of racist stuff, including an anti-black remark directed toward Obama, who he said was the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”  As opposed to the rest of the black race I guess.

Then perhaps a non-politician.  Maybe the PlannedParenthood-Margaret Sanger Dinner?  No, she was a racist who hated black people so bad that she pushed abortion as a way to exterminate the black race. And who knows, they might wanna serve baby parts at the event!

Hmmm I’m starting to sense a pattern here!  So, since it’s hard to find a non-racist Democrat, then perhaps they can name their fundraising dinners after their real hero – the Annual Karl Marx Day Dinner!



  1. In an effort to keep it muti-cultural, perhaps the Democrats should change the name of the day to Obama-Billary-Weiner-Cisneros-Franke-Abzug Day.

  2. JFK was only slow on Civil Rights legislation. He had an active presidency throughout pushing Civil Rights. And he did like Martin Luther King, especially after the March On Washington. As for Truman, he’s guilty of a lot more than saying the n-word and even dropping atomic bombs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: