Inligting

Unie van Demokratiese Beheer


Einde Julie 1914 het dit aan die Britse regering duidelik geword dat die land op die punt staan ​​om oorlog te voer met Duitsland. Vier senior lede van die regering, David Lloyd George (kanselier van die staat), Charles Trevelyan (parlementêre sekretaris van die onderwysraad), John Burns (president van die plaaslike regering) en John Morley (minister van buitelandse sake vir Indië), was gekant daarteen dat die land by 'n Europese oorlog betrokke sou raak. Hulle het die premier, Herbert Asquith, meegedeel dat hulle bedoel het om oor die kwessie te bedank. Toe die oorlog op 4 Augustus verklaar is, het drie van die mans, Trevelyan, Burns en Morley, bedank, maar Asquith het daarin geslaag om Lloyd George, sy kanselier van die skatkis, te oorreed om van plan te verander.

Die dag nadat die oorlog verklaar is, het Trevelyan vriende begin kontak oor 'n nuwe politieke organisasie wat hy wou stig om die oorlog teë te staan. Dit het twee pasifistiese lede van die Liberale Party ingesluit, Norman Angell en E. D. Morel, en Ramsay MacDonald, die leier van die Arbeidersparty. 'N Vergadering is gehou en nadat hulle name soos die Peoples' Emancipation Committee en die Peoples 'Freedom League oorweeg het, het hulle die Union of Democratic Control gekies.

Die vier mans was dit eens dat een van die hoofredes vir die konflik die geheime diplomasie was van mense soos die Britse minister van buitelandse sake, sir Edward Gray. Hulle het besluit dat die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer drie hoofdoelwitte moet hê: (1) dat daar in die toekoms parlementêre beheer oor buitelandse beleid moet wees om geheime diplomasie te voorkom; (2) daar moet na die oorlog met ander demokratiese Europese lande onderhandel word in 'n poging om 'n organisasie te stig om toekomstige konflikte te voorkom; (3) dat die vredesvoorwaardes aan die einde van die oorlog die verslane nasie nie moet verneder nie en ook nie grense kunsmatig herrangskik nie, aangesien dit 'n rede kan wees vir toekomstige oorloë.

Die stigters van die Union of Democratic Control het 'n manifes opgestel en mense genooi om dit te ondersteun. Gedurende die volgende paar weke het verskeie leiers by die organisasie aangesluit. Dit sluit JA Hobson, Charles Buxton, Ottoline Morrell, Philip Morrell, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, Arnold Rowntree, Morgan Philips Price, George Cadbury, Helena Swanwick, Fred Jowett, Tom Johnston, Bertrand Russell, Philip Snowden, Ethel Snowden, David Kirkwood, William Anderson, Mary Sheepshanks, Isabella Ford, HH Brailsford, Eileen Power, Israel Zangwill, Margaret Llewelyn Davies, Konni Zilliacus, Margaret Sackville en Olive Schreiner.

Ramsay MacDonald is deur koerante aangeval weens sy teenkanting teen die Eerste Wêreldoorlog. Op 1 Oktober 1914, Die tye 'n toonaangewende artikel gepubliseer getiteld Helping the Enemy, waarin dit geskryf het dat "geen betaalde agent van Duitsland haar beter gedien het nie" wat MacDonald gedoen het. Die koerant bevat ook 'n artikel van Ignatius Valentine Chirol, wat aangevoer het: 'Ons kan met reg trots wees op die verdraagsaamheid wat ons toon selfs teen die uiterste spraakvergunning in gewone tye ... Mnr. MacDonald se saak is heel anders. In die tyd van werklike oorlog ... het MacDonald probeer om die reputasie van sy land te beswadder deur openlik met skandelike dubbelsinnigheid die ministers wat sy gekose verteenwoordigers is, te hef, en hy het die vyandelike staat gehelp ... Sulke optrede oorskry selfs die grense van selfs die mees buitensporige verdraagsaamheid, en kan nie behoorlik of veilig deur die Britse regering of die Britse volk verontagsaam word nie. "

Trevelyan se huis (Great College Street 14, Londen) het die UDC se hoofkwartier geword. Namate die organisasie uitgebrei het, het die organisasie groter persele ingeneem in Norfolkstraat 37 (1915) en Lion Court 4-7, Fleetstraat (1917). Die UDC is hoofsaaklik gefinansier deur vooruitstrewende sakelui soos George Cadbury en Arnold Rowntree.

Die UDC was een van die eerste politieke groepe wat vroue in hoë posisies in 'n organisasie aangestel het. Helena Swanwick was 'n lid van die Uitvoerende Komitee en twaalf vroue was in die Algemene Raad. Dit het Isabella Ford, Margaret Llewelyn Davies en Margaret Sackville ingesluit.

Die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer kom gou voor by die belangrikste van al die oorlogsorganisasies in Brittanje en het teen 1915 300 000 lede gehad. E. Morel het as sekretaris en tesourier die dominante figuur in die UDC geword. In Augustus 1915 besluit die UDC om Morel te betaal vir sy sekretariële pligte. Morel het ook die meeste UDC -pamflette geskryf wat tydens die oorlog gepubliseer is. Ander wat pamflette geskryf het, sluit in Ramsay MacDonald, Norman Angell, Arthur Ponsonby, J. Hobson, Charles Buxton, Norman Angell, Helena Swanwick, Richard Tawney en H. Brailsford. Lede van die UDC het ook 'n Volkebond gestig.

Terwyl die Manchester Guardian en Die Nasie, was redelik simpatiek vir die doelstellings van die UDC, maar die meeste koerante en tydskrifte was uiters vyandig. Die Daily Express, onder redaksie van Ralph Blumenfeld, het die veldtog teen die UDC gelei. In April 1915 druk die gesoekte plakkate van E. Morel, Ramsay MacDonald en Norman Angell. Onder opskrifte soos: 'Wie is E. Morel? En wie betaal vir sy Pro-Duitse Unie? dit dui daarop dat die UDC vir die Duitse regering werk.

Horatio Bottomley, aangevoer in die John Bull Magazine dat Ramsay MacDonald en James Keir Hardie die leiers van 'n 'pro-Duitse veldtog' was. Op 19 Junie 1915 beweer die tydskrif dat MacDonald 'n verraaier was en dat: "Ons eis sy verhoor deur Court Martial, sy veroordeling as 'n hulpverlener en 'n ondersteuner van die koning se vyande, en dat hy na die toring geneem word en met dagbreek geskiet word." Op 4 September 1915 het die tydskrif 'n artikel gepubliseer wat 'n aanval op sy agtergrond gemaak het. "Ons het stilgebly met betrekking tot sekere feite wat al lank in ons besit is. Eerstens het ons geweet dat hierdie man onder 'n aangename naam leef - en dat hy geregistreer is as James MacDonald Ramsay - en dat, daarom het hy toelating tot die Laerhuis verkry in vals kleure, en was hy waarskynlik strafbaar om sy verkiesing nietig te verklaar, maar om hierdie toestand bekend te maak, sou ons 'n baie pynlike en onsmaaklike plig opgelê het. moes genoodsaak gewees het om die man se geboortesertifikaat voor te lê. En dit sou onthul het wat ons vandag met regverdigmaking wil onthul - om die rede sal ons dit binne 'n rukkie noem ... dit sou hom as die buite -egtelike seun van 'n Skotse diensmeisie onthul het ! "

Die Daily Express het die besonderhede van toekomstige UDC-vergaderings gelys en sy lesers aangemoedig om dit te ontbind. Alhoewel die UDC by die minister van binnelandse sake gekla het oor wat hy deur die koerant 'aanhitsing tot geweld' genoem het, het hy geweier om stappe te doen. Die polisie weier die volgende paar maande om UDC -sprekers te beskerm en hulle word dikwels aangeval deur woedende skares. Na 'n besonder gewelddadige gebeurtenis op 29 November 1915, berig die koerant met trots die 'uiterste roete van die pro-Duitsers'.

Die Daaglikse skets het by die veldtog teen die UDC aangesluit. Dit het sy lesers op 1 Desember 1915 gesê dat: "hierdie sameswering doodmaak, ons die aarts samesweerder, E. Morel, moet in die hande kry". In die komende maande is E. Morel verskeie kere fisies aangeval. Hy het voortgegaan om die organisasie te bestuur en teen 1917 het lidmaatskap van die UDC en aangeslote organisasies 650,000 bereik.

Die regering beskou E. Morel nou as 'n uiters gevaarlike politieke figuur. Basil Thompson, hoof van die afdeling vir kriminele ondersoek van Scotland Yard, en toekomstige hoof van spesiale tak, is gevra om Morel en die Union of Democratic Control te ondersoek. Thompson het berig dat die UDC nie 'n revolusionêre liggaam is nie en dat sy fondse afkomstig is van die Society of Friends en "mnre. Cadbury, Fry en Rowntree".

Ten spyte daarvan dat Thompson nie bewyse van kriminele aktiwiteite gevind het nie, het die minister van binnelandse sake instruksies gegee oor Morel se arrestasie. Op 22 Augustus 1917 is die huis van Morel deursoek en bewyse gevind dat hy 'n UDC -pamflet na 'n vriend in Switserland gestuur het. Dit was 'n tegniese oortreding van die Defense of the Realm Act en Morel is tot ses maande gevangenisstraf gevonnis. Morel, wie se gesondheid reeds swak was, het nooit ten volle herstel van die moeilike omstandighede van die Pentonville -gevangenis nie.

Frederick Pethick-Lawrence was tesourier van die Union of Democratic Control (UDC) en is in die lente van 1917 gekies as die organisasie se kandidaat in die tussenverkiesing in Suid-Aberdeen. Pethick-Lawrence het slegs 333 stemme gekry, terwyl die regeringsverteenwoordiger met 3,283 stemme gewen het. Alhoewel hy ses en veertig jaar oud was, het die regering probeer om Pethick-Lawrence in diens te neem in 1917. Hy het geweier, maar in plaas van 'n gevangenisstraf is hy tot die einde van die oorlog op 'n plaas in Sussex toegewys.

Tydens die algemene verkiesing van 1918 het al die voorste lede van die Union of Democratic Control hul setels in die parlement verloor. Teen 1924 was hulle egter terug en verskeie, waaronder Ramsay MacDonald (premier/minister van buitelandse sake), Philip Snowden (kanselier van die staat), Arthur Henderson (minister van binnelandse sake), Charles Trevelyan (minister van onderwys) en Fred Jowett (kommissaris) van Werke) was almal lede van die nuwe Arbeidsregering. Morel het nie 'n kabinetspos gekry nie, maar was MacDonald se voorste adviseur by die buitelandse kantoor.

Lede van die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer was sterk teenstanders van die Versailles -verdrag. Verskeie senior weermagoffisiere het by die UDC aangesluit in protes teen die verdrag, waaronder generaal Hubert Gough, brigadier-generaal C. B. Thompson, bevelvoerder Kenworthy en kolonel Bruce Kingsmill.

In die dertigerjare het die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer 'n veldtog teen fascisme in Duitsland en Italië beywer, China ondersteun in sy stryd met Japannese aggressie en pleit vir Indiese onafhanklikheid.

Al hierdie twyfel oor die omstandighede waaronder ons by die Eerste Wêreldoorlog betrokke geraak het, het in die laaste deel van 1914 by my opgekom. In Londen het ek na my neef, sir Charles Trevelyan, gegaan wat dieselfde standpunte gehad het as Ek het dit gedoen, en saam het ons na Bertrand Russell, E. Morel, Arthur Ponsonby, Lowes Dickinson en Ramsay Macdonald gegaan, wat 'n baie moedige toespraak in die Huis gehou het oor die oorlogsverklaring. Ek het een van die stigterslede van die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer geword: destyds het ons gedink dat die beste manier om die Europese anargie wat die oorlog veroorsaak het, bloot te stel, is om 'n soortgelyke samelewing te vorm waarby mense wat nie kop verloor het nie. kan behoort. Ek het ook gaan sit en 'n boek geskryf met die titel Die diplomatieke geskiedenis van die oorlog. Dit het ten doel gehad om aan te toon dat al die Europese moondhede op een of ander manier verantwoordelik was vir die ramp. Mnre George Alien & Unwin het aansienlike moed getoon in die publikasie van die boek, wat swaar aangeval is deur die meeste beoordelaars, aangesien oorlogskoors vinnig toeneem. Nietemin het die boek soos soetkoek verkoop en gou na 'n tweede uitgawe gegaan.

Daar is geen misdaad gepleeg deur staatsmanne van hierdie aard sonder dat die staatsman 'n beroep op die eer van die nasies doen nie. Ons het die Krimoorlog gevoer weens ons eer. Ons het na Suid -Afrika gejaag vanweë eer. Die regte Hon. Gentleman (Sir Edward Gray) spreek ons ​​vandag aan vanweë ons eer. Wat is die nut daarvan om daaroor te praat om België te hulp te kom, as u in werklikheid 'n hele Europese oorlog voer, wat nou die kaart van Europa in die huidige posisie sal laat?

1. Geen Provinsie mag van die een regering na die ander oorgedra word sonder toestemming deur die volksbevolking van die Provinsie nie.

2. Geen verdrag, ooreenkoms of onderneming sal in die naam van Groot -Brittanje aangegaan word sonder die goedkeuring van die parlement nie. Daar word voldoende masjinerie geskep om demokratiese beheer van buitelandse beleid te verseker.

3. Die buitelandse beleid van Groot -Brittanje is nie daarop gemik om alliansies tot stand te bring met die oog op die handhawing van die 'balans van mag' nie, maar is gerig op gesamentlike optrede tussen die magte en die oprigting van 'n internasionale raad, wie se beraadslaging en besluite is openbaar, met die nodige masjinerie om internasionale ooreenkoms te verseker, wat die waarborg van 'n blywende vrede is.

4. Groot -Brittanje sal as deel van die vredeskikking 'n plan voorstel vir die drastiese vermindering van die bewapening van al die strydende magte, met toestemming, en om die beleid te vergemaklik, poog om die algemene nasionalisering van die vervaardiging van wapens te verseker en die beheer van die uitvoer van wapens deur een land na 'n ander.

5. Die Europese konflik word nie deur ekonomiese oorlog voortgesit nadat die militêre operasies opgehou het nie. Die Britse beleid is daarop gerig om gratis kommersiële omgang tussen alle nasies te bevorder en die behoud en uitbreiding van die beginsel van die oop deur.

Ek het by die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer aangesluit en die tesourier geword. Soos sy naam aandui, is dit gestig om daarop aan te dring dat buitelandse beleid in die toekoms, net soos tuisbeleid, onder die algemene wil moet wees. Die bedoeling was dat geen verbintenisse aangegaan moet word sonder dat die mense volledig ingelig is en hul goedkeuring verkry is nie. Deur 'n natuurlike oorgang het die doelwitte van die Unie die vorming van terme van 'n duursame nedersetting ingesluit, op grond waarvan die oorlog 'n einde kon bring.

Eers kon ons oral openbare vergaderings hou en ons saak stel, maar soos die tyd aanstap, is 'n georganiseerde opposisie opgestel deur 'n afdeling van die pers, wat ons verteenwoordig as teenstanders van die dapper manne wat die land se gevegte beveg het. Ons vergaderings in Londen is gevolglik verbreek. Ek onthou veral een waar ek as voorsitter van die platform geslinger is. In die middel van die stryd het 'n jong soldaat uitgeroep: "Moenie die ou man seermaak nie." Ek het die bynaam met 'n bietjie vermaak gehoor. Ek was maar 43.

Ek weet dat wysheid deur ellende by arm mense kan begin kom. Maar selfs ek twyfel as ek mense soos George (George Macaulay Trevelyan) sien meevoer deur vlak vrese en oningeligte haat ... Dit wys hoe absurd ver ons is van broederlike gevoelens tot uitlanders, selfs al is dit 'n vlak fineer in hom. Hy wil net soos die res die Duitsers haat ... Ek is meer moedeloos daaroor as enigiets anders, want dit toon die hulpeloosheid van verstand voor nasionale passie.

Onder die vele verslae wat tans oor ministeriële bedankings is, blyk daar min twyfel oor drie. Dit is dié van Lord Morley, John Burns en Charles Trevelyan. Daar sal wyd simpatie wees met die aksie wat hulle onderneem het.

Of mense hierdie aksie goedkeur of nie, dit is aangenaam in hierdie donker oomblik om hierdie getuie te hê van die gevoel van eer en die lojaliteit teenoor die gewete wat dit aandui ... aan die wortel van vryheid en wat nooit soveel in gevaar is as in tye van oorlog en sosiale ontwrigting nie.

Alhoewel die oorwinning van ons vloot oorweldigend is, sal ons handel geweldig ly. Ook in die oorlog moet die eerste produktiewe energie van die hele volk gewy word aan bewapening. Cannon is 'n swak industriële ruil vir katoen. Ons sal voortdurend verarm as die karakter van ons werk uitruil. Dit alles het ek so sterk gevoel dat ek nie die oorsaak voldoende kan ag wat tot hierdie ellende kan lei nie. Ek het dus bedank.

Hy (Lloyd George), Beauchamp, Morley en Burns het almal Saterdag uit die kabinet bedank voor die oorlogsverklaring op grond daarvan dat hulle nie instem met Grey se belofte aan Cambon (die Franse ambassadeur in Londen) om die noordkus van Frankryk teen Duitsers, wat dit as gelykstaande aan oorlog met Duitsland beskou. Op dringende vertoë van Asquith het hy (Lloyd George) en Beauchamp Maandagaand ooreengekom om in die kabinet te bly sonder om in die minste mate, wat hom betref, sy beswaar teen die beleid terug te trek, maar slegs om die voorkoms van ontwrigting te voorkom te midde van 'n ernstige nasionale gevaar. Dit bly sy standpunt. Hy is as 't ware 'n losstaande lid van die kabinet.

Ek het oorlog gehaat. Ek het geglo dat die mense van die wêreld oorlog haat en geen haat vir mekaar het nie. 'N Groot stryd het my bors geskeur. Ek kon die Duitsers nie haat nie. Hulle was lief vir hul land net soos ek vir myne. Vir hulle was hulle tradisies en geskiedenis, godsdiens en liedere myne. Tog het ek in 'n arsenaal gewerk en gewere en doppe gemaak vir een doel - om mans dood te maak sodat hulle nie mense vermoor nie. Wat 'n verwarring! Wat moes ek doen? Ek was nie 'n gewetensbeswaarmaker nie. Ek was 'n politieke beswaarmaker. Ek het geglo dat finansies en kommersiële wedywering tot oorlog gelei het.

Ons moet onsself afvra of Duitsland meer geneig sou wees om onderdanig te wees of wraak te neem deur ... maatreëls van onderdrukking 'Dit is 'n kwessie van sielkunde. En sielkunde is bloot die studie van die menslike natuur deur waarneming van ons eie gedagtes en gevoelens ... Hoe moet ons voel en optree as 'n oorwinnaar ons probeer verpletter? Sou ons nie al die hulpbronne van 'n gestimuleerde geboortesyfer, verbeterde intellektuele en industriële opleiding gebruik om die beperkings wat ons opgelê word te trotseer of te omseil nie ... Moet ons enige opoffering, intrige spaar om vryheid en wraak te bewerkstellig? ... 'n Vernederde, onveilige of ingeslote Duitsland sou waarskynlik beteken dat 'n Duitsland weer 'n bewapening van 'n Leipzig na 'n Jena.

Die politici berei 'n slegter wêreld vir ons kinders voor as die een waarin hulle gebore is. En ons moet geneig wees tot wanhoop oor die toekoms as ons nie steeds ons geloof in die uiteindelike triomf van die rede oor die huidige nasionale en internasionale demensie behou nie, en dat ons glo dat daar 'n groot meningsverskil in hierdie land is deur die politici of deur die pers, en aansienlik gesonder as óf.

Die Raad van die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer herbevestig sy onwrikbare oortuiging dat 'n blywende skikking nie verseker kan word deur 'n vrede gebaseer op die veroweringsreg en gevolg deur kommersiële oorlog nie, maar slegs deur 'n vrede wat die aansprake van nasionaliteit regverdig oorweeg , en wat die grondslag lê van 'n werklike Europese vennootskap.

Ons Unie van Demokratiese Beheer het twee oogmerke. Die een is om die Engelse mans en vroue saam te voeg tot 'n georganiseerde liggaam van wie daar, soos in elke ander land wat aan hierdie oorlog deelneem, baie honderde duisende is, wat nie oorlog begeer het nie, en wat vasbeslote is dat wanneer die vrede kom dit sal 'n werklikheid wees, en nie 'n broeikas vir die opwekking van toekomstige oorloë nie. Ons voel dat die regerings die oorloë uitgevoer het - die mense self moet vrede maak! Ons organiseer onsself, sodat ons op die tydstip effektief kan optree. Ons tweede doel is om onsself en ander hiervoor op te voed.

Toe skares, ywerig deur 'n paar koerante of 'n paar persone saamwerk, vergaderings uitbreek of sprekers aangerand het, was daar geen beskerming nie, en die stemming wat die owerheid aangeneem het, was dat dit "hulle regte gedien het". Lede van die UDC is deur die polisie in die skadu gestel, klopjagte is uitgevoer op kantore en privaat huise, en in baie gevalle is daar beslag gelê op publikasies wat deur die sensor afgelê is, en mense wat besig was met die verkoop daarvan is opgeneem, gedreig en geïntimideer.

Veiligheid kan slegs verkry word deur 'n skema waarvolgens die nasies van Europa en buite saamstem dat almal elkeen sal waarborg. Die doel van die oorlog sal bereik word as daar 'n Volkebond is met 'n absolute en beslissende veto op blote aggressie, en die oorweging van enige wettige aansprake wat enige van die lande wat aan die oorlog deelneem, kan oorweeg. Gaan terug na die ou Liberale tradisie en vertrou u met vrymoedigheid op die ordentlike, vriendelike, menslike kragte wat in elke man en elke nasie gevind kan word.

Daar is 'n keuse tussen twee polisse. Die eerste is vrede deur onderhandeling, die tweede gaan oor maande en maande met die oorlog - miskien vir jare. Vrede deur onderhandeling beteken nie om na die keiser te gaan en te vra watter vredesvoorwaardes hy ons genadiglik sal gee en die voorwaardes te aanvaar nie. Dit sou vrede wees deur oorgawe. Vrede deur onderhandelinge beteken 'n vrede waarin Groot -Brittanje en haar bondgenote op sekere onherleibare terme sou aandring en tot 'n skikking kom ten opsigte van die ander.

Daar is tans geen bewyse aan die lig wat toon dat die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer of die Geen-Diensgenootskap uit vyandelike bronne gefinansier word nie, en die feit dat hulle die ondersteuning van baie welgestelde Quaker-gesinne beveel, is moontlik hul vermoë om voort te gaan huidige aktiwiteite.

Die Unie van Demokratiese Beheer was meer voor die openbare oog as ander pasifistiese liggame, deels vanweë die posisie van Ramsay MacDonald, Arthur Ponsonby, Charles Trevelyan en Frederick Jowett, en deels vanweë die bekendheid van E. Morel. Dit is nie 'n revolusionêre liggaam nie, en het in elk geval in die begin van die oorlog 'n beroep op die intellektuele klasse as op die werkersklas gedoen. Buiten die drukkoste, is die uitgawes daarvan nie baie groot nie. Die Society of Friends en mnre. Cadbury, Fry en Rowntree het almal redelik liberaal op sy fondse ingeteken.

Sy hare is heeltemal wit (daar was skaars 'n wit voorkoms) toe hy die eerste keer uitgekom het, het hy heeltemal, fisies en geestelik ineengestort, grootliks as gevolg van onvoldoende voedsel. Hy sê 'n mens kry net 'n driekwart uur lees gedurende die hele dag - die res van die tyd word aan gevangeniswerk bestee, ens.

Die teater was vol en 'n groot oorloopbyeenkoms is in 'n oop ruimte oorkant die pad gehou. Morel het homself beperk tot die binne -vergadering. Maar wat 'n ontvangs het hy gekry. Buite, oorkant die pad, hoor ons gejuig asof hulle die dak wil oplig. Ons het Morel bewonder en ons het met volle krag hom geëer.

Vir elke man wat 'n jaar gelede geweet en gesê het dat die vredesverdrag immoreel was in die opvatting en rampspoedig sou wees, is daar duisende wat dit nou sê. Alhoewel daar min te sê is oor die Verdrae wat nog nie gesê is nie, is dit tog van groot belang om die openbare mening in die buiteland te laat besef dat die hartelose en siniese politici wat daaroor onderhandel het, nie die werklike humeur van Groot -Brittanje verteenwoordig nie.

Die fundamentele leuen waarop die Versailles -verdrag gebou is, is die teorie dat Duitsland alleen en heeltemal verantwoordelik was vir die oorlog. Geen regverdige student van die oorlog en die oorsake daarvan kan hierdie bewering aanvaar nie; maar die propagandaverhaal van die enigste skuld van Duitsland is so volhardend van kansel, pers en parlement verkondig dat die grootste deel van ons mense dit as 'n aksiomatiese waarheid beskou wat die bepalings van die wreedste en onregverdigste verdrag in die wêreldgeskiedenis regverdig.

Dit lyk vir my asof die vredesverdrag vanuit twee oogpunte beskou kan word, die morele en die suiwer utilitaristiese. Van beide lyk dit baie sleg, en dit het misluk en moet steeds nie 'n goeie resultaat bereik nie, soos almal wat in die oorlog geveg het, sou ons verwag. Ons het gehoop om geregtigheid, eerlike handel tussen nasies en eerlike nakoming van beloftes tot stand te bring; ons het gedink om 'n goeie en blywende vrede te vestig wat noodwendig op goeie wil tot stand sou kom. Die vredesverdrag het niks van die aard gedoen nie.

Siegfried Sassoon ... met verlof tussen Augustus 1916 en Februarie 1917, waartydens hy beïnvloed is deur 'n aantal pasifiste te ontmoet en deur die lees van H. G. Wells se roman van stoïese ontnugtering, Meneer Britling sien dit deur. Terug na die voorkant is hy binne twee maande gewond; en dit was toe hy hom in April 1917 in 'n Engelse hospitaal bevind, dat hy, met die hulp van Bertrand Russell, Middleton Murry en Francis Meynell, besluit om sy dramatiese protesoptog te lewer. Nadat hy sy verklaring gepubliseer het, het hy egter teruggetrek en die psigiatriese behandeling van die baanbrekende neurasthenia -spesialis professor W.R. Rivers aanvaar, wat Robert Graves as alternatief vir 'n krygsraad gereël het, en later terugkeer na die front. Soos in 1936, toe hy ingestem het om 'n borg van die P.P.U. (alhoewel hy nooit 'n enkele komitee bygewoon het nie), blyk dit dat Sassoon nie 'n pasifis was nie, maar 'n pasifis met 'n buitengewoon skerpe haat teenoor oorlog, gekombineer met die gevoel van 'n digter teenoor die tragedie van oorlog, 'n nostalgiese aristokratiese vrees, soos ook deur Lansdowne, protes wat op 29 November 1917 in die Daily Telegraph gepubliseer is dat die oorlog die sosiale weefsel voor 1914 vernietig en 'n lewenslange politieke onskuld wat veroorsaak het dat hy die probleem van die beveiliging van vrede deur onderhandeling oorvereenvoudig het.

Alhoewel die omstandighede van Max Plowman se protes opmerklik dieselfde was - soos Sassoon, was hy 'n gewonde digter wat kortliks deur professor Rivers behandel is en wat uiteindelik militêre straf vrygespring het, maar sy beswaar teen oorlog was daarenteen gebaseer op 'n diepgaande en onwankelbare pasifisme. Reeds voor die oorlog het Plowman die risiko's geneem vir sy oortuigings en het hy sy pa se baksteenfabriek agtergelaat om 'n gevaarlike bestaan ​​as skrywer te bewerkstellig. En as sosialis het hy altyd twyfel oor die oorlog: hy het eers in Desember 1914 as vrywilliger gewerk, en dan slegs vir ambulanswerk. Die eerste teken dat sy standpunte oor oorlog duidelik word ', was sy besluit in Julie 1915 dat daar geen beginselverskil tussen strydende en nie-vegtende diens was nie. Eers besluit hy om te veg en word in diens van 'n infanterieregiment, wat die voorkant bereik het in Augustus 1916. In Januarie 1917 was hy egter 'n harsingskudding en 'n invalide huis, om nooit weer na die loopgrawe terug te keer nie. Dit was tydens sy siekteverlof dat hy geleidelik ontdek het dat hy 'n pasifis is; en dit was onder die invloed van Tagore's Nasionalisme dat hy in Januarie 1918, na 'n jaar weg van die front, die stap geneem het om sy kommissie te bedank op grond daarvan dat sy haat teenoor oorlog 'geleidelik verdiep het tot die vaste oortuiging dat georganiseerde oorlogvoering van enige aard altyd georganiseerde moord is. So ek glo heeltemal in die leer van die menswording (dat God inderdaad in elke menslike liggaam woon) dat ek glo dat die doodmaak van mense altyd die dood van God is. Hy was gelukkig om nie net met 'n eenvoudige ontslag uit die weermag te ontsnap nie, maar ook as gevolg van vertragings in die dienspligprosedure (waarna hy nou as vrygelate vrywilliger aanspreeklik was) om die gevangenis as absolutis te vermy. Hy gebruik sy vryheid om 'n verduideliking te skryf van sy standpunt wat in 1919 gepubliseer is as War and the Creative Impulse en wat die klassieke sosialistiese pasifisme definieer wat hy onwankelbaar vir die res van sy lewe beweer het. Alhoewel dit in die meeste opsigte soortgelyk was aan die Christelike sosialisme van byvoorbeeld Wilfred Wellock, was dit duidelik 'polities' deurdat dit nie geïnspireer was deur 'n beroep op bonatuurlike gesag nie, maar op 'n mistieke, byna anargistiese opvatting van sosialisme wat Plowman lank gehad het. bewonder in sy literêre held, William Blake.


Demokratiese Unioniste Party

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

Demokratiese Unioniste Party (DUP), vakbondspolitieke party in Noord -Ierland. Die DUP is gestig deur Ian Paisley, wat dit gelei het van 1971 tot 2008. Die party ding tradisioneel mee om stemme onder die unionistiese protestantse gemeenskap van Noord -Ierland met die Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).


ONS GESKIEDENIS

Ons party het meer as 200 jaar lank die stryd gelei vir burgerregte, gesondheidsorg, sosiale sekerheid, werkersregte en vroueregte. Ons is die party van Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, en die ontelbare daaglikse Amerikaners wat elke dag werk om 'n meer volmaakte vakbond te bou. Kyk na 'n paar van ons prestasies, en u sal sien waarom ons trots is om Demokrate te wees.

19de wysiging: stemreg vir vroue

Onder leiding van die demokratiese president Woodrow Wilson is die Amerikaanse grondwet gewysig om vroue stemreg te gee. In Augustus 1920 het Tennessee die 36ste staat geword wat vroue se stemreg bekragtig het, en dit het die 19de wysiging van ons land geword.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt en die New Deal

In die dertigerjare het Amerikaners hulle tot Demokrate gewend en president Franklin D. Roosevelt verkies om die Groot Depressie te beëindig. President Roosevelt bied aan Amerikaners 'n New Deal wat mense weer aan die werk sit, plaaspryse stabiliseer en elektrisiteit na landelike huise en gemeenskappe bring. Onder president Roosevelt het maatskaplike sekerheid 'n belofte gestig wat tot vandag toe bestaan: oud word beteken nooit weer arm word nie.

Wet op sosiale sekerheid

Een van die mees volhoubare dele van Franklin D. Roosevelt se New Deal, die Social Security Act bied hulp aan afgetredenes, werkloses, weduwees en weeskinders. Deur hierdie wet te onderteken, was Franklin D. Roosevelt die eerste president wat pleit vir federale hulp aan bejaardes. Dit is grootliks gekant teen Republikeinse wetgewers.

1940s-1960's

In 1944 onderteken Franklin D. Roosevelt die G.I. Bill-'n historiese maatreël wat ongekende voordele gebied het vir soldate wat uit die Tweede Wêreldoorlog terugkeer, insluitend goedkoop verbandlenings, lenings om 'n onderneming te begin, en onderrig- ​​en lewenskoste vir diegene wat op soek is na hoër onderwys. Harry Truman het gehelp om Europa na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog te herbou met die Marshall -plan en het toesig gehou oor die stigting van die Noord -Atlantiese Verdragsorganisasie. Deur die weermag te integreer, het president Truman gehelp om hindernisse van ras en geslag af te weer en die weg te baan vir die bevordering van burgerregte in die daaropvolgende jare.
In die 1960's wend Amerikaners hulle weer tot die Demokrate en verkies president John F. Kennedy om die uitdagings van 'n nuwe era aan te pak. President Kennedy het Amerikaners gewaag om 'n man op die maan te sit, die Peace Corps te stig en 'n verdrag te onderteken wat 'n verbod op atmosferiese toetsing van kernwapens verbied.
En na die moord op president Kennedy, kyk Amerikaners na president Lyndon Johnson, wat 'n nuwe visie van 'n Great Society bied en die wet op burgerregte en stemreg onderteken.

Wet op Burgerregte

Hierdie belangrike wetgewing verbied groot vorme van diskriminasie teen Afro -Amerikaners en vroue en verbied rasseskeiding. Onderteken deur president Lyndon B. Johnson, het dit 'n einde gemaak aan ongelyke stemvereistes en gesegregeerde skole, werkplekke en openbare geriewe.

Van president Johnson tot president Obama

President Johnson se inwerkingtreding van Medicare was 'n keerpunt in die geskiedenis van Amerika wat ons land se toewyding aan ons seniors herdefinieer en 'n nuwe belofte bied dat alle Amerikaners die reg het op 'n gesonde aftrede.
In 1976, in die nasleep van die Watergate -skandaal, het Amerikaners Jimmy Carter verkies om waardigheid in die Withuis te herstel. Hy het die departemente van onderwys en energie gestig en gehelp om 'n blywende vrede tussen Israel en Egipte te bewerkstellig.
In 1992, na 12 jaar van Republikeinse presidente, rekordbegrotingstekorte en hoë werkloosheid, het Amerikaners hulle weer tot die Demokrate gewend en Bill Clinton verkies om Amerika weer aan die gang te kry. President Clinton het die begroting in balans gebring, die ekonomie gehelp om 23 miljoen nuwe werksgeleenthede by te voeg en die langste periode van ekonomiese uitbreiding in die geskiedenis in die geskiedenis te sien.
And in 2008, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Obama to reverse our country’s slide into the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression and undo eight years of policies that favored the few over the many.
Under President Obama’s direction and congressional Democrats’ leadership, we reformed a health care system that was broken and extended health insurance to 32 million Americans.

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

After decades of trying and despite unanimous opposition from Republicans, President Obama and Democrats passed comprehensive health reform into law in March 2010. The Affordable Care Act holds insurance companies accountable, lowers costs, expands coverage, and improves care for all Americans.

Paving the way

We reined in a financial system that was out of control and delivered the toughest consumer protections ever enacted.
We reworked our student loan system to make higher education more affordable.
We passed the Recovery Act, which created or helped to save millions of jobs and made unprecedented investments in the major pillars of our country.
From America’s beginnings to today, people have turned to Democrats to meet our country’s most pressing challenges—and pave the way for a future that lifts up all Americans.


Party Divisions of the House of Representatives, 1789 to Present

Political parties have been central to the organization and operations of the U.S. House of Representatives. As this chart demonstrates, the efforts of the founding generation to create a national government free of political parties proved unworkable. Parties demonstrated their worth in the House very quickly in organizing its work and in bridging the separation of powers. Within a decade House parties absorbed the various state and local factions.

The chart below emphasizes the traditional two-party structure of the United States, with third-party affiliations in the Other column. Additionally, the numbers of Delegates and Resident Commissioners are reflected in the “Del./Res.” Column for reference. This chart does not address the party affiliation of these Members as they do not hold voting privileges on the House Floor.

The figures presented are the House party divisions as of the initial election results for a particular Congress. This means that subsequent changes in House membership due to deaths, resignations, contested or special elections, or changes in a Member’s party affiliation are not included.


Union of Democratic Control - History

P olitics is compromising , dirty business, at best, and we aren&rsquot flag wavers for any political party. None of them are godly, to say the least. But truth in history is important.

The Republican Party was formed largely on an anti-slavery platform. It emerged in 1854 to combat the expansion of slavery into American territories and new states. The theme was &ldquoFree Soil, Free Labor, Free Men,&rdquo with &ldquoFree Soil&rdquo referring to granting western land to farmers.

The first Republican Party president was Abraham Lincoln, who led the Union&rsquos war against the Southern Confederacy, a war that was not wholly about slavery, but slavery was a fundamental aspect.

In 1865, the Republicans passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery.

In 1868, Republicans passed the Fourteenth Amendment granting citizenship to former slaves and equal protection under the law.

Under President Ulysses Grant (1868-1876), Republicans, backed by federal troops, sought to &ldquoReconstruct&rdquo the South and enforce federal laws granting liberties to blacks. They formed &ldquoUnion Leagues&rdquo and fought the Ku Klux Klan and other segregationist forces.

In 1872, the first seven black members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives were Republicans.

In 1873, Democrats won control of the House of Representatives at the federal level and formed &ldquoRedeemer&rdquo coalitions that gradually gained control over the state governments in the South.

In 1877, federal troops were removed from the Southern states and the era of Reconstruction ended. Democratic-controlled southern governments enacted segregation policies, called &ldquoJim Crow Laws, which effectively disenfranchised blacks and segregated all aspects of society. &ldquoThe region then became the Solid South , giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats through 1964&rdquo (&ldquoHistory of the United States Republican Party,&rdquo Wikipedia ).

&ldquoThe timing of the agreement was prompted by the presidential election of 1876 between Democrat Samuel B. Tilden, governor of New York, and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, governor of Ohio. When the votes were counted, Tilden led Hayes by one vote in the Electoral College. But the Republicans accused the Democrats of voter fraud, saying they intimidated African-American voters in three Southern states, Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina, and prevented them from voting, thus fraudulently handing the election to Tilden.

&ldquoCongress set up a bipartisan commission made up of five U.S. representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices, with a balance of eight Republicans and seven Democrats. They struck a deal: The Democrats agreed to allow Hayes to become president and to respect the political and civil rights of African-Americans if the Republicans would remove all remaining federal troops from Southern states. This effectively ended the era of Reconstruction in the South and consolidated Democratic control, which lasted until the mid-1960s, nearly a century.

&ldquoHayes kept his side of the bargain and removed all federal troops from Southern states within two months of his inauguration. But Southern Democrats reneged on their part of the deal.

&ldquoWith the federal presence gone, disenfranchisement of African-American voters in the South became widespread and Southern states passed segregationist laws governing virtually all aspects of society--called Jim Crow--that remained intact until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, passed during the administration of President Lyndon B.Johnson. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 followed a year later, finally codifying into law the promises made by Southern Democrats in the Compromise of 1877&rdquo (&ldquoThe Compromise of 1877 Set the Stage for the Jim Crow Era,&rdquo ThoughtCo.com).
__________

The following is excerpted a speech by Dinesh D&rsquoSouza, Stanford University, March 2019 [ web reference ]

The fascists [in Europe], for their part, were deriving and drawing ideas from the United States. This is not known, and I want to give a single example which I have dramatized in my movie The Death of a Nation . .

Leading members of Nazi Germany, 1935, are in a room and they are drafting the so-called Nuremberg laws. These are the laws that make Jews into second class citizens, and they do three things: they segregate Jews into ghettos, they forbid intermarriage between Jews and other Germans, and they condone confiscation of Jewish property. In other words, state-sponsored discrimination against Jews. The Nazis are sitting there, and basically they are saying, &lsquoWe want to make these laws, but there is no international precedent for them. Nobody has done this type of thing.&rsquo Then one of the Nazis who had studied in the United States said, &lsquoActually, gentlemen, you are wrong. Somebody has beaten us to the punch. The Democratic party in the United States has laws that do all of the three things that we want. The Jim Crow laws of the American south have segregation, anti-miscegenation laws outlawing intermarriage, and they condone state-sponsored discrimination. All we have to do is take the laws of the Democratic party, cross out the word Swart , write in the word Jew , and we are home free.&rsquo What am I saying here? I&rsquom not saying that the Nazis got a parallel idea. I&rsquom saying that actual Nazis had in their hands the blueprints of the Democratic laws and they used it to create the Nuremberg laws, and this fact has been completely suppressed in progressing historiography in the United States.

Now I said the Nazis were talking about the Democratic laws, and you might be thinking, &lsquoDemocratic laws? Aren&rsquot you talking about the southern laws?&rsquo See, the Nazis actually knew something that we don&rsquot know, namely, every segregation law in the United States, from the 1880s to the 1950s was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, enforced by Democratic officials, and there is not a single exception to this rule . . I want to pull back and say just a word about slavery. When I speak on campuses, it is not atypical to tell students that the Democratic party was the party of slavery, and I say it so matter of factly that the students are a little puzzled because they have always heard that slavery was done by the white man, or by America. And I say, Look, America didn&rsquot do anything. Some Americans did it, and other Americans stopped them. We need to distinguish who did it, and who did it was the Democratic party in the north and the south. That&rsquos the key. The whole idea of knocking Confederate monuments is essentially a strategic stage tactic to fool you into thinking that the slavery debate was north-south. But Abraham Lincoln knew better. When he identified the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, the four bad guys of slavery, he mentioned Roger Taney, who wrote the Dred Scott decision. He was a southerner [Democrat] from Maryland. Then Lincoln mentions Franklin Pierce, the former President from New Hampshire, northern Democrat James Buchanan from Pennsylvania, northern Democrat and Stephen Douglas, Lincoln&rsquos supreme antagonist, from Illinois, northern Democrat. So three of the four pro-slavery champions are northerners.

Inevitably when I tell students this, the following happens. Some professor . stands up and says, &lsquoMr. D&rsquoSouza, you are misleading the audience by pointing a finger of blame solely at one party, whereas we all know that there was plenty of blame to go around.&rsquo Very interesting statement. First of all it retreats from the position that the Republicans are the bad guys. It now tries, sort of with a squid-like cloud of obfuscation, to spread the blame so broadly so that no one really knows what&rsquos going on. So it is really important at this time to unfurl what I call &lsquothe crushing fact.&rsquo It is the fact that settles the argument at one blow. This is the time for me to point out that in 1860, the year before the Civil War, no Republican owned a slave . Think about this for a moment. I&rsquom not saying that no Republican leader owned a slave. I&rsquom saying no Republican in the United States owned a slave. . All you have to do is name one Republican who owned a slave, and I would have to take this back. And yet from the time I made this statement well over two years ago not a single valid counter-example has surfaced. Several months ago I got an email from a demographer at the University of Michigan who said, &ldquoDinesh, I&rsquove been working this. I&rsquove got you. Ulysses S. Grant inherited a slave on his wife&rsquos side.&rsquo I said, Well, that is an impressive riposte. I need to point out to you that at the time this occurred, Ulysses S. Grant was a Democrat. He became a Republican later.

What am I getting at? We have a really strange phenomenon. If you look at what&rsquos going on now, you have Democrats, on the left, pointing the finger of racism at the very people who fought racism from the beginning of this country&rsquos history, while suppressing the fact that the actual racism came from their party . This is not just about slavery. The Democrats were the party of slavery, of segregation, of founding the Ku Klux Klan, of reviving the Ku Klux Klan, of racial terrorism, and of opposition to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. The opposition to the civil rights act of 1964, the voting rights act of 1965, the fair housing bill of 1968 came mainly from the Democratic party, and that&rsquos a fact .

Faced with this crushing history, we have a puzzle. First of all, the very guys who have poisoned the waters are now showing up pretending to be the water commissioner. They did it! They have never admitted it. They have never apologized for it. They haven&rsquot paid one penny of restitution for it. And yet they presume to lecture the rest of us who are completely innocent on this score of being the real culprits. This is really funny. My wife, Debby, is Latina. Her father is Venezuelan, her mother Mexican, and we were at Dartmouth: an east Indian and Latina. And a bunch of white guys were screaming at us, &lsquoRacist!&rsquo What is this, Saturday Night Live ! And this is an Ivy League college.

I want to address one final point. This is a very important point for the Left. It is the idea that the two parties switched sides. . The main thrust of the argument is that racist Dixiecrats (those who voted against the civil rights acts) all became Republicans. If true, this would vindicate the idea that the Democrats may have once been the bad guys but now the bad guys have sort of moved over. The beauty of this kind of statement is the fact that it is empirical. It&rsquos not one of those, &lsquoWho&rsquos to say what&rsquos true?&rsquo No, all you have to do is do a web search for &lsquoDixiecrat&rsquo and then you count how many of the racist Dixiecrats became Republican. The correct answer, which I will tell you now, is two. In the House, one guy Albert Watson, and in the Senate, one guy Strom Thurmond, and all the other racist Dixiecrats lived and died in the Democratic party. They are lionized to this day. There are buildings in Washington D.C. named after them. So this notion of a party switch is a big lie.

The racists stayed in the Democratic party. Their tactics shifted over the years. Where does this leave us today? Very sadly, some of these terrible things from history--bigotry, a fascist streak--we still have it in America. But where is it coming from? People say, &lsquoTrump&rsquos the fascist. He hates democracy. He won&rsquot tolerate dissent.&rsquo I&rsquom thinking, &lsquoIf Trump is a fascist and he won&rsquot tolerate dissent, how come you are dissenting? Trump is bashed on every platform every minute of the day. He is bashed on the Emmys. Broadway shows are interrupted to bash Trump. If this was Mussolini he would send a bunch of goons and beat those guys up and that would be the end of that. That&rsquos how dictators actually behave. I saw Cher complaining that Trump beat her up on Twitter. on Twitter! That being said, there is a streak of bullying and intimidation and intolerance. I would argue that simple empirical evidence shows that it is coming from the Left.

The previous is excerpted a speech by Dinesh D&rsquoSouza, Stanford University, March 2019 [ web reference ]

Sharing Policy: Much of our material is available for free, such as the hundreds of articles at the Way of Life web site. Other items we sell to help fund our expensive literature and foreign church planting ministries. Way of Life's content falls into two categories: sharable and non-sharable. Things that we encourage you to share include the audio sermons, O Timothy magazine, FBIS articles, and the free eVideos and free eBooks. You are welcome to make copies of these at your own expense and share them with friends and family. You may also post parts of reports and/or entire reports to websites, blogs, etc as long as you give proper credit (citation). A link to the original report is very much appreciated as the reports are frequently updated and/or expanded. Things we do not want copied and distributed are "Store" items like the Fundamental Baptist Digital Library, print editions of our books, electronic editions of the books that we sell, the videos that we sell, etc. The items have taken years to produce at enormous expense in time and money, and we use the income from sales to help fund the ministry. We trust that your Christian honesty will preserve the integrity of this policy. "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward" (1 Timothy 5:18). Vrae? [email protected]

Goal: Distributed by Way of Life Literature Inc., the Fundamental Baptist Information Service is an e-mail posting for Bible-believing Christians. Established in 1974, Way of Life Literature is a fundamental Baptist preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. Brother Cloud lives in South Asia where he has been a church planting missionary since 1979. Our primary goal with the FBIS is to provide material to assist preachers in the edification and protection of the churches.


The Alliance of U.S. Labor Unions and the Democratic Party

Ever since industrial unions worked to reelect President Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, organized labor and the Democratic Party have worked together in U.S. politics. Unions provide votes, money, and volunteer time, and Democrats offer policy benefits when they take office. This partnership is often taken for granted. Yet it differs from partnerships in other Western democracies, and the distinctive U.S. alliance of unions and a major party has also shifted over time as Democrats have shed their conservative southern wing and the unionized share of the U.S. labor force has fallen threefold over the last six decades. Just eleven percent of all American workers are currently unionized, and a mere six percent in the private sector.

Unique U.S. Political Conditions

Across the world, parties of the center-left ally with trade unions, yet institutional arrangements in the United States have circumscribed labor’s influence. Winning seats only in cities where industrial workers were concentrated gave the early British Labour Party a toehold in the House of Commons, from which it ultimately overtook the Liberal Party. In Canada, the New Democratic Party, a small party with backing from unions and radical wheat farmers, pressured the Liberals to adopt its health insurance program for all Canadians. But in the United States, the Electoral College requires political parties to cobble together national majorities by winning elections outright across 50 heterogeneous states and 435 districts. Unions have mattered in many but never in all of these jurisdictions.

Distinctive historical sequences also matter. In many European countries, unions formed labor parties to push for universal male suffrage long after industrialization was under way. Present-day U.S. trade unions, however, banded together in the American Federation of Labor in 1886, decades after male suffrage expanded and mass political parties emerged in agrarian America. Federal court injunctions also limited early U.S. unions, which responded by focusing on winning benefits on the job for skilled workers and sticking to local-level political alliances.

The New Deal and Its Aftermath

The New Deal transformed both unions and Democrats. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act was spearheaded by Robert F. Wagner, an urban liberal and a loyal Democrat from New York. It gave federal sanction to union contracts, and set up the National Labor Relations Board to enforce collective bargaining rights in the private sector. After the newly formed Congress of Industrial Organizations organized mass-production workers, it departed from organized labor’s longstanding reluctance to take national positions, backing Democrats and New Deal legislation.

  • In the summer of 1936, the Congress of Industrial Organizations led by John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers formed labor’s Non-Partisan League to re-elect Roosevelt and contribute about a tenth of Democrats’ total campaign dollars. Although the League did not get involved in Congressional elections or reach out to state or local unions, a more ramified and permanent political infrastructure emerged by 1943.
  • Hopes for outright political dominance were soon tempered. After a wave of strikes, a coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats, worried about biracial labor organizing that would threaten Jim Crow, passed the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act over President Harry Truman’s veto. This law created barriers to new union organizing, expanded management rights, and allowed states to enact “right-to-work” provisions to ban the union shop. Many states in the Sun Belt did exactly that.
  • After postwar bills for full-employment and national health insurance fell short in Congress, unions relied on collective bargaining to secure health and pension benefits for their own members, supporting public programs as supplements. Even so, anger about Taft-Hartley pushed the American Federation of Labor into continuing alliance with northern Democrats.

Alliance Persists amid Adversity

The New Deal era labor-Democratic partnership profoundly reshaped the electoral landscape, and remained strong as Democrats later lost ground and union enrollments plummeted.

  • Unions increase overall voter participation and also tilt voters toward the Democrats. Of course, labor’s clout has declined with membership losses. But Democratic candidates still benefit, because voters in union households have consistently preferred them by margins between 9 and 16 percentage points greater than voters in non-union households.
  • Ever since 1947, Republicans and Democrats have continued to clash over legal rights for unions, yet Democrats have not been able either to repeal Taft-Hartley or to deliver major new supports. In 1965, 1978, and 2009, pro-union bills failed due to the Senate filibuster.
  • After the 1940s, unions committed scant resources to workplace organizing – and they faced long odds when they tried to change course in the 1990s. Only miniscule slivers of U.S. workers have recently formed unions, and changing this reality would cost thousands of dollars per union member each year. Ironically, a 2005 survey found that 53 percent of America’s non-union employees would favor a union. If such sentiments could be translated into organizational reality, unions would represent almost three-fifths of the U.S. workforce.
  • Backed by a rightward-trending Republican Party, corporations have steadily accelerated efforts to weaken unions. During the 1970s, the share of organizing campaigns in which federal regulators found illegal firings rose from less than a tenth to approximately a quarter, a level of infractions that has since persisted. After Democrats failed to expand union rights, Republican President Ronald Reagan fired striking air controllers in 1981 and banned them from federal employment for life. Further counter-attacks include recent moves by conservative GOP governors and legislatures to extend anti-union laws into previous labor strongholds such as Michigan and Wisconsin.

Just before the 2012 election, the head of the Amalgamated Transit Union worried aloud that if Republicans “take over the federal government, there will be no such thing as a labor movement.” His statement pinpoints why longstanding partnerships between unions and Democrats continue in today’s transformed environment of weak unions, polarized parties, and a fiercely resurgent anti-union Right.


Aims and Principles ↑

The UDC declared its four “Cardinal Points” on 10 September 1914:

  1. Affected populations should be consulted by plebiscite before transferring sovereignty of any area from one state to another.
  2. “Secret diplomacy” should be replaced by public parliamentary sanction for all British foreign policy.
  3. Foreign policy should seek international cooperation rather than the “balance of power”. An “international council” should be established to ensure peace.
  4. Britain should advocate substantial international disarmament and nationalised armaments production.

Extending Point three, the UDC member Goldsworthy Lowes-Dickinson (1862-1932) soon coined the term “league of nations”, and he and several other members were active in the “Bryce Group”, which developed the idea further. The UDC claimed that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s (1856-1924) later advocacy of the League of Nations, and other aspects of his Fourteen Points, were influenced by their ideas.


Founding of the Democratic-Republican Party

Jefferson and Madison founded the party in opposition to the Federalist Party, which was led by John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall, who fought for a strong federal government and supporting policies that favored the wealthy. The primary difference between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalists was Jefferson's belief in the authority of local and state governments.

"Jefferson's party stood for rural agricultural interests urban commercial interests represented by Hamilton and the Federalists," wrote Dinesh D'Souza in Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic-Republican Party was initially just a "loosely aligned group that shared their opposition to the programs introduced in the 1790s," wrote University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. "Many of these programs, proposed by Alexander Hamilton, favored merchants, speculators, and the rich."

Federalists including Hamilton favored the creation of a national bank and the power to impose taxes. Farmers in the western United States strongly opposed taxation because they worried about not being able to pay and having their land being bought up by "eastern interests," Sabato wrote. Jefferson and Hamilton also clashed over the creation of a national bank Jefferson did not believe the Constitution permitted such a move, while Hamilton believed the document was open to interpretation on the matter.

Jefferson initially founded the party without the prefix its members were initially known as Republicans. But the party eventually became known as the Democratic-Republican Party. Jefferson initially considering calling his party the "anti-Federalists" but instead preferred to described its opponents as "anti-Republicans," according to the late New York Times political columnist William Safire.


A difficult transition to progressivism

In the country’s second critical election, in 1896, the Democrats split disastrously over the free-silver and Populist program of their presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan lost by a wide margin to Republican William McKinley, a conservative who supported high tariffs and money based only on gold. From 1896 to 1932 the Democrats held the presidency only during the two terms of Woodrow Wilson (1913–21), and even Wilson’s presidency was considered somewhat of a fluke. Wilson won in 1912 because the Republican vote was divided between President William Howard Taft (the official party nominee) and former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt, the candidate of the new Bull Moose Party. Wilson championed various progressive economic reforms, including the breaking up of business monopolies and broader federal regulation of banking and industry. Although he led the United States into World War I to make the world “safe for democracy,” Wilson’s brand of idealism and internationalism proved less attractive to voters during the spectacular prosperity of the 1920s than the Republicans’ frank embrace of big business. The Democrats lost decisively the presidential elections of 1920, 1924, and 1928.


The 1856 Platform

Resolved, that we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well-considered declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the states.

  1. that Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.
  2. that the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress and therefore, the Democratic Party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures,[3] settled by the Congress of 1850 “the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor,” included which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.
  3. that the Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.
  4. that the Democratic Party will faithfully abide by and uphold, the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798, and in the report of Mr. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799[4] that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import.

And that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the people, North and South, to the Constitution and the Union—

  1. Resolved, that claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue—and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the states and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the territories and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the “slavery question” upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union— non-interference by Congress with slavery in state and territory, or in the District of Columbia.
  2. that this was the basis of the compromises of 1850 confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in national conventions—ratified by the people in the election of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization of territories in 1854.
  3. that by the uniform application of this Democratic principle to the organization of territories, and to the admission of new states, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect—the equal rights, of all the states will be preserved intact the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future American state that may be constituted or annexed, with a republican form of government.

Resolved, that we recognize the right of the people of all the territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other states.

Resolved, finally, that in view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old World (and the dangerous tendencies of sectional agitation, combined with the attempt to enforce civil and religious disabilities against the rights of acquiring and enjoying citizenship, in our own land) a high and sacred duty is devolved with increased responsibility upon the Democratic Party of this country, as the party of the Union, to uphold and maintain the rights of every state, and thereby the Union of the states and to sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution, which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall be, in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this great and progressive people.