State Of Iowa Before The Public Employment Relations Board: Fill & Download for Free

Hello!The answer is not really and neither do they support unions…Regular exercise and an apple a day may help to keep the doctor away. But to live a long, healthy life, it helps to be rich.Income inequality is a pox on America. The rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. CEO pay keeps rising while workers’ paychecks have been all but flat for decades. As a result, income inequality now rivals that of the robber baron days of the early 1900s, when labor unions were virtually outlawed while corporate monopolies thrived.It gets worse. It turns out that low income is an actual pox, killing people before their time. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found in a study released this week that poor people live shorter lives than rich people.This is appalling. And preventable.Researchers at the GAO discovered that poor people are doomed to an early death. They tracked a group of people who were in their 50s in 1992—and found that that the wealthier members of the group were much more likely than the poorer ones to be alive in 2014.If not happiness, money can buy longevity.The early death effect of poverty plays out in whole neighborhoods and towns. Take the coal community of McDowell County, http://W.Va., where the poverty rate is nearly 32 percent. As of 2016, a man’s life expectancy there was 63.9 years, the lowest among U.S. counties.By organizing themselves into unions, workers can buy themselves more time on earth. That’s because median weekly earnings of union workers are about 22 percent higher than those of nonunion workers--$1,051 compared to $860, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Organized labor also fights to get workers better health insurance and retirement benefits. Unions work to make workplaces safer and to hold companies responsible for unsafe conditions so workers don’t die on the job.Unions lift people out of poverty and narrow income inequality. They help to close racial- and gender-based pay gaps. People with decent incomes and benefits are better able to access health care, afford healthy food and enjoy comfortable retirements.The opposite also is true. The lower rate of unionism in recent years has allowed income inequality to grow and that has led, as the GAO study shows, to disparities in life expectancy. Even the Grim Reaper favors the rich.Because unions help build the middle class, government used to support them, especially under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s and 40s. But not now.Now, organized labor is under attack. President Trump’s National Labor Relations Board has made a series of anti-worker decisions that includes denying unions access to an employer’s public spaces, such as hospital cafeterias; denying SuperShuttle drivers the right to organize; and allowing employers to withdraw recognition of unions before negotiations for a new contract begin.GOP-controlled legislatures in states ranging from Wisconsin to West Virginia have passed so-called right-to-work laws that allow workers to benefit from union contracts without joining the union and paying dues and without even paying smaller fees charged to non-members to cover the cost of union services such as negotiations and grievance cases.And last year, the U.S. Supreme Court, packed with Republican appointees, issued the Janus decision that made the entire country right-to-work for public-sector workers. In all 50 states now, public-sector workers who don’t join unions can pay nothing but still enjoy the higher wages and other benefits that dues-paying members get.As right-wingers legislated away union rights over the past four decades, the power of unions declined, and the middle class became stuck. U.S. Census Bureau data released this week show that middle-class wages are roughly the same now as 20 years ago.That’s two decades of stagnation. For workers, not CEOs. Since 1978, CEO pay packages have risen nearly 940 percent.Eight executives at Philadelphia Energy Solutions illustrate how the rich look out for themselves while stiffing everyone else. Together, those executives received almost $4.6 million in retention bonuses on the heels of the June 21 explosion and fire that shut down the refinery, pushed the company into bankruptcy and put about 1,000 employees—many of them members of United Steelworkers Local 10-1—on the street without pay or health insurance.The employees were the ones who risked their lives the day of the disaster by taking quick action to prevent the release of lethal hydrofluoric acid, saving untold lives inside the plant and across Philadelphia.The executives who operated the plant—and were ultimately responsible for the fire and explosion—got a big payoff. The workers got pink slips.This kind of rapacity is so pervasive that it might actually be hurting the economy. Money is being concentrated in the hands of super-rich people who are more likely to invest it than spend it, and that can affect growth.At the other end of the spectrum are people like those in the GAO study who died younger than they deserved.Many of them relied on Social Security to scrape by in retirement. The poorest people in the group didn’t own homes or even cars. They had only what social insurance programs provided.Like labor unions, these programs are under attack.The Trump administration has so weakened Obamacare that the portion of Americans without health insurance increased last year.And after Congress gave rich people and corporations that huge tax cut in 2017, Republican leaders talked about cutting Social Security and Medicare to pay for it. They didn’t do it yet, but the fight isn’t over.Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, recently suggested that Congress meet behind closed doors to discuss “changes” in Social Security. She said she feared public backlash from having the conversation in public. More specifically, she said she didn’t want to look like she was pushing “granny over a cliff.”Sen. Ernst’s flippancy speaks volumes. It shows how little she and other Republicans think of the grannies and grandpas, dads and moms, and working men and women who have broken their backs to pay taxes and provide for their families.Some will struggle all of their working lives, still be unable to save anything for retirement and die early deaths. Sen. Ernst needs to wake up. The Republicans’ pro-wealth, anti-labor and anti-social welfare campaigns are pushing people over a cliff before they live long enough to become grannies.Sources: Everyone linked in the tekst. And Even the Grim Reaper Favors the Rich | OurFuture.org by People's Action

There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how's the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”David Foster Wallace, Kenyon College, 21 May 2005There are many reasons a majority of Americans believe statues honoring Confederate leaders should remain. Most of these answers are in some way connected to the failure of Reconstruction in the postwar era, the resultant flourishing of the Lost Cause mythology, and white America’s general reluctance to confront its past meaningfully.This is admittedly a lot to dig into. Let’s get started.I. Causes of the Civil WarThe main cause of the American Civil War was slavery. Anything else rates as a distant second. We know this because the Confederates were kind enough to tell us this themselves. For example, here’s a transcript of “the Cornerstone Speech” (emphasis mine):Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind — from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.The Cornerstone Speech was delivered by Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, in Savannah, Georgia, about a month after he’d been sworn into that office, and less than a month before the rebels assaulted Federal troops at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.Let’s also consider the “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” which contains this gem (emphasis mine):The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.When reading this document, it may sound reasonable: the states are defying federal law, therefore other states have no obligation to the federal government. It is, however, decidedly unreasonable given the historical context. Specifically, in 1832, South Carolina refused to accept the validity of a tariff and refused to apply it under a pseudolegal concept called “nullification.” This provoked a major crisis, one that only subsided not when the federal government threatened to use force to apply the tariff, but rather, when the tariff was lowered. South Carolina never repudiated the doctrine of nullification, and so, this complaint in its declaration of secession is hypocritical garbage. South Carolina gave no care to the principle of states’ rights, it simply wanted its interests to completely dominate the Union’s. When this did not happen, South Carolina threw a fit and rebelled.Claiming the American Civil War was about anything other than slavery is therefore neatly countered by the statements and actions put forth by the rebels themselves. It is also demonstrated by statements made by the Union — most notably, the Gettysburg Address — and actions taken by it and within it. These actions, by the way, were not all pro-liberation: the draft riots in New York City of 13–16 July 1863, wherein the non-black underclasses[1] of the city attacked the black population, fearing that a hospitable environment for freedmen, as they believed was being created by the war itself, would lead to their own replacement with black labor.So why are we discussing the causes of the Civil War in a discussion on why a majority of Americans in the twenty-first century believe statues commemorating rebels should stay standing? We need to point this out because modern American society is vehemently opposed, at least nominally, to slavery. To defend the continued standing of these statues in their current positions therefore requires squaring a circle: the people represented by those statues were willing to kill to maintain the institution of slavery, which very few modern Americans would view as a defensible position. Indeed, that they did kill to maintain the institution of slavery and the structures of white supremacy constitutes, for the overwhelming majority of those represented, the overwhelming share of their legacy to the country.[2]There are, in general, three ways of squaring the circle:Claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery.Claiming that slavery wasn’t so bad.Claiming that taking down the statues would be an example of historical negationism, or that it would lead via the “slippery slope,” to historical negationism.[3]Since, as demonstrated in the rest of this section,[4] the first two require historical illiteracy, whether intentional or not, in order to understand why the arguments for the monuments persist, we must understand why historical illiteracy regarding the Civil War is as prevalent as it is within the United States.Part II: The Myth of the Good SlaveownerThe most pernicious of the defenses cited in the first answer is the claim that slavery wasn't that bad. This argument is trotted out on a regular basis, albeit in different words: "X may have been a slaveowner, but he always treated his slaves well and even had provisions in his will to free them after his death." The argument is therefore that there were "good" slaveowners and "bad" slaveowners, and yes, the bad slaveowners were terrible people, but the good slaveowners were simply good people who happened to own slaves, and why should we be so awful about their slaveholding? I mean, you can't expect people to just go against the standards of their time, can you?It isn't hard to see where it came from, either: slaveowners themselves. A "good" slaveowner might occasionally feel a pang of guilt about their slaveowning - and posthumous manumission is clear evidence of this - but they could always comfort themselves by saying that at least they weren't that bad slaveowner down the road, and besides, what would happen to the slaves were they to just be freed all willy-nilly?This is a nonsense argument, and the disingenuousness of the claim has been in the popular consciousness since, at the very latest, the publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852. Indeed, much of the controversy regarding Uncle Tom's Cabin stemmed not from its depiction of Legree, the text's depiction of a "bad" slaveowner,[5] but rather, from its condemnation of even the "good" slaveowners and its unsparing attack on slavery as a whole.In particular, at one point, following being sold and ripped away from his wife and children by a "good" slaveowner named Shelby, the titular character becomes the possession of St. Clare. St. Clare treats Tom kindly, and St. Clare's young daughter, Eva, loves Tom like she would a member of the family. Tom's situation at this point in the novel is relatively comfortable among the "good" slaveowning set. Eva then dies of disease, her father subsequently stabbed outside a tavern, and because St. Clare's desire to free Tom is ignored, Tom ends up with Legree.The text portrays St. Clare sympathetically, but it still condemns him: he may personally treat Tom well and he may have no animus towards black people, but his own participation in the system is, in the end, directly responsible for Tom's suffering and eventual death at the hands of Legree. The "good" slaveowner does little-to-no physical harm to his slaves directly,[6] but by participating in the system in the first place, facilitates — even unwillingly — the violence of others towards slaves.This is why Uncle Tom's Cabin caused a furor. Had Uncle Tom's Cabin merely been a condemnation of the "bad" slaveowner, it may have briefly seized the public's attention, but then rapidly faded from it. However, Uncle Tom's Cabin condemns even the so-called "good" slaveowners, and for that, the slaveowning South had to create a response. Thus, an entire genre of literature, "anti-Tom literature" arose in the antebellum South. The anti-Tom books have all faded from popular consciousness, but Uncle Tom's Cabin has not — this even despite Uncle Tom's Cabin not being an especially good book[7] — to the point where, even a century after publication, the plot was assumed to be sufficiently generally familiar to an American audience that an idiosyncratic adaptation of the novel in Rodgers and Hammerstein's The King and I could be assumed by the authors to reliably generate laughs. It still does.Of course, there's another reason why counters to Uncle Tom's Cabin's argument are usually rejected today: they rely on explicit white supremacy. This was obviously true of anti-Tom literature, which invariably asserted slavery's necessity in view of the supposed inferiority of blacks. It has also been true of every popular counter since: D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation depicts blacks as subhuman, and the depiction of blacks in Gone With the Wind ascribes humanity only to subservient blacks — the blacks who aren't subservient to the white population are depicted as rapists whose murder is thoroughly justified. The argument for why "good" slaveowners existed is therefore not "no, Harriet, they didn't participate in and facilitate an inherently violent system," but rather "slavery was necessary due to the inferiority of the black population." No other argument has had anywhere near the same success in sticking in the popular consciousness as the one borne from white supremacy.Having said all this, it is a misuse of language as it is colloquially used to describe anyone putting forth this argument as a "white supremacist." We generally reserve that term for people who consciously believe that "white" people are superior and would intentionally structure society in accordance with this belief. This is not currently a popular position within American discourse (although it is growing in strength); however, this does not change the fact that the myth of the good slaveowner is rooted in white supremacy, and defense of Confederate monuments to "good" slaveowners is therefore incurably poisoned by white supremacy.This itself raises another question: how does white supremacy, including coded and unintentional, so frequently go unquestioned within American discourse?Part III: Southern Victory via ReconstructionFollowing July of 1863, with the capture of Vicksburg and Lee's defeat at Gettysburg, the question was no longer if the Confederacy would fall, but rather, when. This meant serious thought had to be given to how the states in rebellion would be reintegrated into the Union. This proved a matter of some controversy. Northern Democrats, who themselves had ranged in position from complete opposition to the war to tepid support for it, generally advocated an extremely lenient reintegration process — but following the 1864 elections, the Democrats would lose most of their representation, with Republicans "waving the bloody shirt" and blaming them, mostly successfully, for having created the conditions for the war in the first place. This led to the primary players in the question of reintegration being all Republicans. At the time of the end of the Civil War, there were two factions in the Republican Party.The Moderates, among whose numbers were President Abraham Lincoln and Vice-President Andrew Johnson, believed representatives and senators from former Confederate states could be seated in Congress after a lenient set of conditions were met: acceptance of the Thirteenth Amendment,[8] a proviso in the state constitution banning slavery, and ten percent of the state's population to swear an oath of loyalty to the federal government. The Radicals, who dominated the legislative branch, wanted much stricter conditions, among them, for a majority of the state's population to swear said oath of loyalty. Either way, both sides were convinced Reconstruction was required, and that acceptance of the rebellion without any change was unacceptable.Lincoln initially, by virtue of being commander in chief of the armed forces and putting the former rebellion under military occupation, steered a Moderate course. Historians are split on whether or not Lincoln would have been successful in this had he lived. Lincoln's prestige was high after the war, and he may have had the popularity and statesmanship required to sell the public and the legislative branch on his proposals. We will never know, however, because within days of the war's end, Lincoln was assassinated and was succeeded by Andrew Johnson.Andrew Johnson was not a popular politician. He had gotten the job of vice-president mostly by virtue of having been a southerner, thus allowing the Republican party to run as the "National Union Party" in the 1864 election and secure the support of pro-war Democrats. He was not particularly skilled, nor was he particularly charismatic, and, having had very little to do with the Union's victory, had none of Lincoln's credit to trade on. Thus, he was in a poor position to see his Moderate goals enacted, and unequipped to navigate to a better position. However, as he was still president following Lincoln's assassination, which meant he was far from powerless.The result was a series of increasingly nasty battles between Johnson and the Radicals in Congress. This eventually culminated in Johnson's impeachment in 1868, his trial on the Senate floor, and his acquittal by a single vote. These squabbles diverted attention and energy away from the actual process of Reconstruction. Some of this ended with the election of a Radical Republican, Ulysses S. Grant, to the presidency in 1868. Unfortunately for the Radicals, this came with its own set of problems: the Grant administration is generally viewed by historians as being among the most corrupt in presidential history.[9] The corruption of the Grant administration caused a fight in the Republican party, one sufficiently bitter that, in 1870, a sizeable group bolted the party and put up its own candidate for election, Horace Greeley, in 1872.[10]Partly as a result of all this infighting, by the time of the 1876 election, the appetite in the north for continuing Reconstruction was essentially gone. The 1876 election proved to be among the most controversial in US history, with Democrat Samuel J. Tilden winning the popular vote and, by all rights, the electoral college only to have it stolen out from under him.[11] In exchange for Democrats conceding the election, Republicans would pull all remaining federal troops from the former Confederacy and end Reconstruction.This was a disaster. Everyone knew what it would mean, and nobody in a position to do anything about it gave anything approximating a shit.What is commonly taught regarding Reconstruction in the US education system is, putting it politely, garbage. It is frequently taught that the Reconstruction era governments were hopelessly corrupt, incurably inefficient, and just generally terrible. None of this, as it so happens, is true.[12] What did happen with these Reconstruction Era governments is that the previously powerful in the former Confederate states were disenfranchised, while those who had been enslaved were suddenly allowed to have a hand in determining their own government. In other words, local and state governments began to see significant black representation, and black senators and representatives were elected to the federal government.Of course, the titanic change in social structure did lead to serious problems of governance - not so much from the governments, but from the governed. In 1866,[13] a group of former Confederate officers formed the Ku Klux Klan in Tennessee. Initially, the Klan was a social organization; however, this soon changed and the Klan's purpose in life was giving voice and action to the resentment felt by the newly disenfranchised former rebels. This, of course, euphemistically refers to the fact that the Klan was a terrorist organization, which murdered, assaulted, and, to be redundant, terrorized the black population.Thus, while blacks went to the polls for the first time in 1867, they were still under-represented there, a state of affairs that would continue into the early 1870's, when the federal government finally enacted legislation making the Klan's terrorism, and deprivation of civil rights more generally, a federal offense. Between this and dedicated police work by the military, the Klan had essentially disappeared by the mid-1870's. However, the Klan's systematic extralegal disenfranchisement of the black community and the steady re-enfranchisement of former rebels[14] allowed the former structures of power to reassert themselves, and start legally disenfranchising the black population.This was ongoing during the tail end of Reconstruction, so the effects of withdrawal of federal troops from former Confederate states were known by all well in advance of the Compromise of 1877. Thus, exclusively blaming the South for the failure of Reconstruction to create an equitable society and stamp out the virus of white supremacy is intellectually dishonest twaddle: the North barely had an interest in redressing the evils of the previous ninety years of slavery within the United States. Of course, this isn't surprising: white supremacy as an ideology had pretty well taken root north of the Mason-Dixon Line, just as it had south of it.This once again goes back to the myth of the good slaveholder. We usually think of states north of the Mason-Dixon Line as having been "free states." When discussing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, we talk about how the admission of Missouri as a slave state threatened to wreck the precious balance between free states and slave states in the Union. The problem with this view is that the "free states" weren't. In 1820, slavery was still legal in New York, and would remain so until 4 July 1827.[15] As another example, New Jersey kept slavery legal in some form until 1865.And even more to the point, even though the "free states" were generally quite inhospitable to slavery as an institution, slavery was good business for them all the same. New York City grew rich from exporting southern cotton, and Massachusetts' textile mills desperately depended on it. When one makes a deal with the devil, one has to either ignore the devil's actions or else justify them, and since white superiority was already a required system in the northern states — how else could the abysmal treatment of the Amerindian population otherwise be justified? — the belief in the inherent, natural, and appropriate supremacy of white people over nonwhites (but especially over blacks) was essentially de rigeur.[16]This is why Reconstruction failed, and indeed, had no chance of success. Yes, the most popular campfire songs among the Union included "Battle Hymn of the Republic,"[17] "Battle Cry of Freedom"[18] and "John Brown's Body"[19], but only the most egregious offenses against the black population could be condemned, for the northern states were frequently just as guilty of everything else, and indirectly culpable for those offenses.Part IV: Early Historical RevisionismThe overwhelming majority of monuments glorifying rebels were not built until the twentieth century. As has been pointed out time and time again, plenty of former rebels did not want statues erected in their honor, most famously Robert E. Lee. The first large wave of monument building began approximately in 1900 and hit its peak in 1910. This was also one of the nastiest periods of anti-black violence in American history: for the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first two of the twentieth, between fifty and one hundred black people in the South were lynched per year. It also came after the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson made segregation legal within the United States. Every means was used to keep the black population down.This included the statues.As pointed out by current GOP senator Ben Sasse,[20] monuments to the Confederacy and to Confederates were not infrequently erected on the sites where black men had been lynched. To be clear: after murdering innocent black men and frequently mutilating their corpses, the local white population would erect statues glorifying those who had killed to keep slavery legal on the site, statues of figures such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, likely the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.[21] These statues were deliberately designed to be as offensive as possible as a means of declaring white power over black people. George Orwell discussed a similar phenomenon in fascism. Orwell pointed out that, yes, the goosestepping looked ridiculous, but in intentionally adopting ridiculous gestures and then forbidding people to laugh, the state was demonstrating its own power. The same principle was in effect here: the most outrageous and intolerable things were done, with objection forbidden, to demonstrate power.This isn't usually discussed, and once again, it's not hard to understand why: broad sections of white America were broadly culpable. The Ku Klux Klan was re-founded in 1915, but where the original incarnation of the Klan was a regional organization determined to restore the antebellum social order in the former Confederacy — an aim that was mostly accomplished — the second incarnation of the Klan was a national organization that was virulently anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, and antisemitic. Within a decade of its second founding, the Ku Klux Klan had 15% of the nation's eligible population in its rolls (and just under 5% of the population, period), coming out to just under 5 million people. Explicit white supremacy as the basis for governance was popular in wide sections of the country. And frankly, the reason the second incarnation of the Klan had fallen from favor by the late 1920's had virtually nothing to do with the Klan's aims, but rather, with their means. The constant in American political thought is that if things are quiet — which violence most assuredly is not — then things are fine. Get rid of the violent goons of the Klan, and things are fine, no need to address the entire system that naturally spawned the Klan on three separate occasions.[22]The statues were not the only example of white supremacy being forced into the historical record. As discussed back in Part I, the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. This was, again, announced proudly by the belligerents themselves. However, within twenty years of the Thirteenth Amendment, this became a matter of some embarrassment for the former Confederates: it turns out that, when nobody is a slaveholder, killing several hundred thousand people to keep black people in bondage appears indefensible to the population at large. And so, we end up seeing such nonsense as "states' rights" as the cause of the Civil War, even though the only particular right the rebels had really cared about was the right to own slaves. This garbage started shortly after the Civil War — former Confederate President Jefferson Davis in his self-aggrandizing The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government was an early example — and soon predominated the record such that by the 1890's, Lincoln's former secretaries had to resuscitate Lincoln's reputation.[23] Rather than frame the Confederacy as a rebellion that fired the first shots of the war so that they could keep black people in slavery, the dominant trend in historiography of the conflict for the following century was to frame the Confederacy as a glorious last stand for freedom, a "Lost Cause" whose leaders embodied greatness of spirit. Similarly, the Dunning School — which grew from Columbia University — dominated the view of Reconstruction, painting it in the most starkly negative terms, including the maligning of black participation in governance. Until the "Neoabolitionists" of the 1960's came to the scene, these and other similar views were the dominant narrative of Civil War historiography.It is difficult to overstate just how much influence Lost Cause mythology has had on the American perception of the Civil War, and how much effect it has had on race relations within the country. The most obvious effects have been on popular media. D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation in 1915 was the first blockbuster film in American history. Its climax involves a group of Klan horsemen riding frantically to rescue a white woman from the evil clutches of a Reconstruction governor, who is presumably voted out of office the following day when the Klan bars the black population from the polls. That this film was a product of its culture should be obvious — art is rarely created ex nihilo, and art produced as a specifically capitalist endeavor as studio films must reflect the culture that gave rise to them.[24] However, The Birth of a Nation also deeply reinforced the culture from which it was born. Griffith's film is often, rightly, cited as a masterpiece of cinema, to the point where virtually every film made since has been influenced by it either directly or indirectly. It is not exaggeration to say film audiences had never seen anything remotely like it, which also means that whatever tropes it employs that would strike a twenty-first century audience as melodramatic cliche would have been fresh, original, and insidiously persuasive to the audiences of 1915. The founder of the second incarnation of the Klan would go on to say that he did not believe the Klan could have been re-founded had The Birth of a Nation not been made.The Birth of a Nation, however, is a three hour silent movie[25] and is, outside of film schools, generally not viewed today. That said, for most people, the cinematic images they have of the Civil War still come from this Lost Cause/Dunning School view, because of Gone With the Wind.Gone With the Wind was published in 1936 and was an instant bestseller. Polls still place it as the second favorite book of American readers after only the Bible, and for a time, it was at the top of of the US all-time bestseller list.[26] Its film adaptation was one of the most hotly anticipated films of all time, and would subsequently go on to be the most successful film in box-office history.[27] It is still a popular film, and it still sees periodic cinema re-release.And it is undeniably a text of white supremacy. Even when the black characters are granted virtues, said virtues tend to stem from white people all the same — Mammy (who the film doesn’t even give an actual name!) is generally a moral center of the proceedings, but is always clear that her judgement is guided entirely by “Miss Ellen,” her master. This is the film people generally think of when asked for cinema depicting the March through Georgia or Reconstruction. Even now, when white supremacy as a doctrine of thought is disavowed by polite society, the image we have of Reconstruction is in no small part shaped by white supremacy.[28]Part V: Leaving the Roots of the WeedThe second wave of statue building came during the Civil Rights Movement. Again, this was a weaponization of history designed to intimidate the black population into staying silent; however, this time, it didn’t work. Timing had quite a bit to do with it: while white supremacy was a “respectable” doctrine in the 1910’s and 1920’s, it could not be anything of the sort in a post-Auschwitz world. The Nazis essentially single-handedly destroyed the respectability of “racial science,” and without some greater justification for white supremacy — and in a modernist and postmodernist world, said justification could never be religion — it could not be espoused respectably, which meant systems that required supporters to explicitly espouse white supremacist beliefs simply could not survive.This is not to downplay the efforts of those people who actively campaigned against segregation and voter suppression, because those people were indeed brave. They frequently risked their lives in the struggle, and sometimes lost them. However, unlike half a century before, the federal government was willing to step in on behalf of the protesters. The Supreme Court ruled against segregation in Brown v Board of Education in 1954 and against anti-miscegenation statutes in Loving v Virginia in 1967, among others. President Dwight D. Eisienhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers in Mississippi when the state refused to do so.[29]Similarly, this is not to say white supremacy disappeared. It didn’t. Many of white supremacy’s most obvious reinforcing structures were dismantled through the end of segregation and the enactment of various anti-discrimination and civil rights statutes, but white supremacy is still a pervasive element of mainstream American culture. Remember, hungover high school history teachers will still put Gone With the Wind on instead of teaching, without commenting on the text and its underlying assumptions. History textbooks routinely still present the Dunning School interpretation of Reconstruction without criticism[30] and will even go so far as to label slaves as migrant workers from Africa. And yes, this stuff has an effect. It’s close to thirty years since Do the Right Thing came out in theaters, and we’re still arguing if Mookie did the right thing by smashing the window of Sal’s Pizzeria, and not asking why Radio Raheem had to die. Hell, we’re still actually killing Radio Raheem in the streets, filming it, and letting those responsible go.[31]And so, we get to the crux of the matter: white supremacy runs deep, and America never really dealt with it. At every obvious opportunity to do so, the country has combated the worst and most obvious excesses without actually bothering to interrogate the deeper psychology of the matter. Because of white supremacy, we end up with apparent nonsense like “the Civil War was not about slavery” being taught in schools. Because of white supremacy, we end up with people viewing the nature of a cause people killed for as being incidental to whether or not they should be honored. Because of white supremacy, we don’t recognize monuments to the Confederacy as inherently historically revisionist. Because of white supremacy, we cannot accept their removal as a needed correction to a grossly distorted record. Because of white supremacy, we can somehow talk of slavery as a “mistake,” when we would recognize this as a disgusting statement coming from any other analogous circumstance.[32] And because of white supremacy, the only way we seem to be able to keep monuments of our “mistakes” is not through monuments to the oppressed, but rather, through monuments to the oppressors.[1] Primarily the Irish. The application of the term “white” here would be ahistorical, because while Irish-Americans are considered white now, they were most decidedly not considered white at the time of the Civil War, and indeed, not until the twentieth century.[2] Nobody would remember Thomas Jackson were it not for the Civil War. He was a competent junior officer during the Mexican-American War, but how many statues of first lieutenants of that conflict who died prior to 1861 have been erected in the years since? Indeed, Jackson is more commonly referred to by his nickname, Stonewall, which came during the Civil War.[3] As we shall see, this third claim is usually heavily reliant on the first or the second claim, but I’ve listed it here separately because it sometimes manages to skirt that issue.[4] For a thorough treatment of the subject, I recommend Battle Cry of Freedom, by James M. McPherson, Oxford University Press, 1988.[5] Legree's background is a transplanted northerner, which helps the novel’s argument significantly. Had Legree been a southerner, it would have come across as a purely regional attack.[6]Uncle Tom's Cabin is a melodrama written by a white woman in the first half of the nineteenth century. That it provides little insight into the psychological states of black slaves is therefore understandable.[7] Again, it's a melodrama with little psychological insight into its characters. It is very much of a kind with all sorts of disposable literature from the nineteenth century (or today, for that matter), except in theme. For a more substantial treatment of Uncle Tom’s Cabin's failing's as a novel, please refer to George Orwell's essay "Good Bad Books."[8] The Thirteenth Amendment mostly bans slavery within the United States. It does not, however, ban it outright, so it is technically legal, from a constitutional perspective, for a convicted prisoner to be sold.[9] Grant himself was generally not implicated in the corruption, and by most accounts was an honest man. However, he was also a deeply trusting man and created an environment in which corruption flourished.[10] Greeley, despite also being nominated by the Democrats, did not do well in the election of 1872. This meant that his death in between the casting of the popular vote and the voting of the electoral college did not change the outcome of the election. One wonders what would have happened had Grant died in between the two votes.[11] There were "irregularities" in some of the ballots. In order to win the election, Tilden only had to receive one of the disputed electoral votes, and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes had to win all of them. The commission that was supposed to impartially decide the apportionment of the votes ended up being composed of eight Republicans and seven Democrats — that the vote went according to party lines should not be a surprise, and that this was partisan nonsense has never really been meaningfully disputed.[12] For a more thorough treatment on the topic, James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Taught Me is an excellent resource.[13] The Klan was possibly founded in December of 1865. The history of the first Ku Klux Klan relies on poorly-kept records.[14] The re-enfranchisement of former rebels was extensive, to the point where Alexander H. Stephens, he of the Cornerstone Speech and the Vice Presidency of the Confederacy, would go on to be Georgia's Eight District's representative in the House from 1873 to 1882, when he resigned to take the office of Governor of Georgia.[15] Gradual abolition was passed in New York in 1799, with all children of slaves born after that time being technically free — except they were legally indentured until their mid-to-late twenties.[16] This is another attitude called out in Uncle Tom's Cabin. St. Clare's northern relatives are antislavery in sentiment, but also take the superiority of whites over blacks as obvious and natural.[17] "In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea / With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me / As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free"[18] "We are bringing to our numbers the loyal, true and brave / Shouting The battle cry of freedom / For although he may be poor, he shall never be a slave"[19] A song glorifying a failed attempt to create a republic of freed slaves within territory that would later attempt to secede.[20] A statement made on Facebook here, for example: Senator Ben Sasse[21] The leader of the Ku Klux Klan is the "Grand Wizard." His direct underlings are "Grand Dragons." Local cells are led by an "Exalted Cyclops." This sounds like it's out of a crappy Dungeons & Dragons campaign, but it's mostly designed to echo esoteric mystery cults, which use these sorts of naming practices to create a sense of grandeur. However, the Klan's "grandeur," much like the Third Reich's "theatricality," is inherently fragile. Thus, Nazis dancing in a swastika formation in The Producers generates a laugh, even though that's barely an exaggeration of actual Nazi pageantry, and Superman battling a Grand Wizard on a radio program can get children of Klan members cheering.[22] As reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of Klan chapters in the United States grew by over 100% in 2015, suggesting we may be looking at a fourth iteration of the Klan.[23] Without John Hay and John Nicolay's biography, there is little chance Lincoln would enjoy the exalted position he currently holds in reckonings of American presidents.[24] Yes, I’m cribbing from the Frankfurt School here.[25] There is no definite length of the film besides to say it is twelve reels long. At the time the film was released, manual cranking of the projector was still the norm, so depending on the vigor of the projectionist and the speed at which the accompanist played the recommended score, the film could come it at wildly different run times.[26] It displaced Ben-Hur: A Story of the Christ, which had displaced Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Note that Uncle Tom and Ben-Hur are both stridently anti-slavery, and were dwarfed in popularity by a book that took the complete opposite tack.[27] Adjusting for inflation, it is still the most successful film in box-office history, beating Avatar by close to half a billion dollars.[28] This is actually a common phenomenon. As another example, mental images of the Nazis are often shaped by Triumph des Willens, the 1935 propaganda film the Nazis themselves produced.[29] Local law enforcement were involved in the murders. The FBI was able to claim jurisdiction based on the 1870 Enforcement Act, discussed obliquely in Part III.[30] Again, Lies My Teacher Told Me.[31] The death of Eric Garner, involving an illegal chokehold death, is the most obvious parallel. It is not the only one.[32] Imagine someone calling Dachau a “mistake.” Doesn’t sound right, does it?

I'm going to echo the "No" that has already been eloquently established by others greater than myself. But I'd like to categorically break this down.TL;DR:There is no evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage infringes on the rights of heterosexual couples.There is no evidence that same-sex marriage infringes on the benefits received by heterosexual couples.There is evidence that certain privileges which have historically been disproportionately awarded to homophobic individuals are being curbed. However, non-homophobic heterosexual couples are not affected.There is no empirical evidence that same-sex marriage has degraded the notion/stability of marriage in countries where it is legal.Part 0. BackgroundJust so we are clear, here is a list of the nations that have legalized gay marriage: The Netherlands (2000); Belgium (2003); Spain (2005); Canada (2005); South Africa (2006); Norway (2008); Sweden (2009); Portugal (2010); Iceland (2010); Argentina (2010).In addition, the following US States have legalized same-sex marriage: Massachusetts (2004); Connecticut (2008); Iowa (2009); Vermont (2009); Washington, D.C. (2009); New Hampshire (2010); New York (2011). (And, of course, California briefly legalized same-sex marriage, but does not currently.)Part I. Rights. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.There is a difference between "rights" and "privileges." And there is a lot of ongoing disagreement in this world over where to draw the line between these two categories.I.A. Know Your RightsIf we're going to talk about how rights apply across-the-board to all citizens of a country, we really have to discuss rights in terms of how they are defined, implemented and enforced through that country's law and policy.When you're looking at multiple countries, examining "Rights Infringement" can be tricky because the legal recognition of, and protections for, "Rights" vary a great deal across nations once you start to get deep into the weeds.People in the US and in other countries which have legalized same-sex marriage agree to a greater or lesser extent about the broad categories of human rights that should be protected. (I'm just going to ignore rights that are clearly not applicable in this discussion, as I doubt anyone is arguing, for example, that legalization of same-sex marriage has resulted in, say, arbitrary arrest and detention of heterosexual couples.) When we're talking about rights in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, there are the four general principles that come up:Freedom of expressionFreedom of assemblyFreedom of religion, conscience and beliefEqual participation in/protection of all other rightsFurthermore, the countries in question more or less generally adhere to the principle that: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." (That's language from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Though, the interpretation of this principle varies a great deal.)Despite generally agreeing on these rights, the implementation and protection of these rights varies a great deal depending on the historical body of law and prevailing cultural norms dominant in each country. All that said, and for the purposes of keeping this answer within a few hundred pages, I'm going to broadly establish that the "Rights" of anti-gay heterosexual couples have, and which same-sex marriage could theoretically challenge, are as follows:The right to call homosexuality an abomination. Loudly and in public.The right to gather as a group of anti-gay people.The right to follow the mandates of a religion that prohibits contact with homosexual people.The right to not be discriminated against for being homophobic.Any time "my right to be treated equally under the law" butts up against "your right to practice your religion [by denying me service/employment/access/right to exist]," there is absolutely no resolution that will be 100% satisfactory to both of us.It is the duty and function of a country's legislative and judicial bodies to define (and redraw as needed) the lines between "your rights" and "my rights" to ensure everyone is equally protected. Different countries draw these exact boundaries in slightly different places.I.B. Which Laws Affect Your Rights As a HomophobePermitting same-sex marriage per se rarely, if ever, tests the boundaries of rights. A "Marriage" is a commitment/contract between two individuals -- a relationship that in-and-of-itself has no direct impact on others beyond the couple (and officiant).For a heterosexual couple/person to feel his/her rights are violated by legitimized same-sex marriages, one or more additional (related) factors must also be involved, such as:Adoption practices (who may adopt, under what circumstances)Employment practices (under what circumstances may a business prefer heterosexual employees)Federal funding (what criteria does the government use in determining whether it may fund/refuse to fund an organization)Service provision (under what circumstances may an individual or organization refuse services/membership to a homosexual)Hate speech (under what circumstances does exercising free expression speech infringe on the rights of others)Public school education (what may be promoted/permitted in a school system)To my knowledge, in all of the countries in question, the legal and policy questions surrounding each of these issues is handled separately from marriage. For example, in Belgium same-sex marriage was legalized in 2003, yet gay couples were not legally able to adopt until 2006. Conversely, gay couple have been able to adopt since 2003 in Sweden -- which did not fully legalize same-sex marriages until 2009.Typically, before same-sex marriage is permitted, a country will have already created or amended several laws which extend certain equal rights, protections and opportunities to citizens regardless of sexual orientation. Examples:Let's say Dutch business man wants to fire an employee who marries a person of the same sex, solely because it violates his religious principles to advocate this relationship. If it comes down to a court challenge, it will be employment non-discrimination laws that are cited, not same-sex marriage.France, for example, has not legalized gay marriage. Yet, hate crimes legislation increases the penalties if you exercise your right to shout "This gay couple is an abomination" as you beat them.In the US, if you are in, say, New Mexico and you want to refuse to serve a gay married couple in your restaurant because it violates , you can blame the existing public accommodation laws that require places open to the public to not discriminate,In each of these cases, the specific legal status of the gay couple is secondary (if not irrelevant) to the situation.Part II: It's a Privilege.Privileges are not rights. While privileges and benefits are nice to have, the government and society in general is not in any way obligated to protect privileges.II.A Privileges and Benefits of MarriagePrivileges and benefits extended to married couples include (depending on the country): tax benefits, estate planning benefits, medical benefits, family benefits, consumer/family discounts, etc. etc. etc.When same-sex marriage is legalized in a country, these same benefits are extended to same-sex couples.There is no evidence that any of these practical and legal benefits has been diluted for heterosexual couples by the recognition of same-sex marriage.However, even if it were the case that, say, a private company had to reduce family benefits for all employees in order to provide equal benefits for same-sex couples, this is a situation that sucks. "Sucks" is not at all the same thing as "rights violation."II.B Violation of Privileges vs. Rights of Homophobic IndividualsThere are certain clear-cut rights that anti-gay individuals do have, and that are protected. Per my discussion in I.B, I can only think of two rights which are directly impacted legalizing same-sex marriage (rather than, say, by anti-discrimination or other related laws).Right: To not perform a same-sex religious ceremony.This is a scare tactic people love to toss out: that the government will make Churches perform same-sex marriages. Only, this has never, ever happened. Ever. In countries where the government does run and have control of the Church (including, for example Norway and Canada, as well as others) it is a legal possibility that the government could theoretically require Churches to perform same-sex marriages. Even so, this has never, ever happened. (I will note that crazy MP in the UK has made attempt at this, but it is extremely doubtful the law will pass).In the US, where there is no "National Church" it is completely ludicrous to think that the government could force a church to marry a same-sex couple. We would have to re-write chunks of the Constitution first.Right: To not be forced into a same-sex marriage.I'm not sure I have to dignify this with a summary. But in countries which legalize gay marriage, there is no recorded instance when a heterosexual individual was forced to enter a same-sex marriage.That said, there are many cases where people imagine they are dealing with a "Right" when in fact they are dealing with a privilege. There are instances when "privileges" have been curbed, in order to provide equal rights to all.Right: To loudly and publicly disapprove of same-sex marriages.This includes:Talking about your hatred of gays.Publishing your own anti-gay books and newspapers.Going door-to-door telling people about the evils of homosexuality (provided you do not trespass when asked to leave.)Holding meetings of groups of people that hate gays.Teaching your children that being gay is an abomination.I can find no reported instance when these rights have been violated in a country that legalizes same-sex marriage.Related Privileges that are NOT protected:To be disruptive.To make gay couples feel unsafe or physically threatened.To have your views printed/posted in any specific book/newspaper/meeting/venue/media.To have the government fund the publication/distribution of your views.To have publicly funded spaces/organizations provide resources for a group that discriminates/is not open to the public.Right: To avoid contact with homosexual couples.I can find no reported instance when these rights have been violated in a country that legalizes same-sex marriage.Related Privileges that are NOT been protected:To ban same-sex couples from spaces open to the general public.To deny the existence of same-sex couples.To prevent others from discussing the existence of families with two moms or two dads in front of your children in a public setting.Right: To receive equal treatment under the law.I can find no reported instance when these rights have been violated in a country that legalizes same-sex marriage. I can find no instance where the law prefers same-sex individuals over anti-gay individuals:Same-sex couples are held to the same legal standards as heterosexual couples.Gay groups which have exclusive/discriminatory membership practices are held to the same standards when apply for funding/the right to use public spaces as are religious/anti-gay groups.Business owners who wish to deny services to homosexuals are held to the same standards as homosexuals who wish to deny services to anti-gay religious individuals.Related Privileges that are NOT been protected:Giving preference to anti-gay beliefs in developing public school curriculaGiving preference to anti-gay beliefs in allowing/denying requests for public resourcesApplying different standards for open-to-the-pubic businesses, depending on whether discrimination is based on religious beliefs or general bigotry.Part III: The Sanctity and Stability of MarriageThe final question in the vague notion of "infringement" is whether same-sex couples devalue the marriages of heterosexual couples.The research is ongoing. And in most countries, it is too soon to have long-term data. But we can make two empirical, research-based points on this.1. M. V. Lee Badgett, author of “When Gay People Get Married: What Happens When Societies Legalize Same-Sex Marriage,” did an extensive study on data from the Netherlands. She says:I looked hard for evidence of changes in the cultural idea of marriage and for evidence that heterosexuals and gay and lesbian couples have different ideas and behavior related to marriage — but I couldn’t find any. The trends in marriage and divorce didn’t change. The ideas about marriage expressed by lesbian and gay couples lined up with the ideas of their heterosexual peers: marriage is about the love and commitment of two people who work together as equals to weather life’s ups and downs, become members of each other’s extended families, and often (but not always) raise children together. Couples who formalize their relationships — gay or straight — are more likely to choose marriage than a civil union.Dutch heterosexuals appear to have adapted to the legal change by changing how they see same-sex couples, not how they see marriage.http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/how-the-dutch-work-same-sex-marriage/2. There is no evidence that same-sex marriage impacts divorce rates for heterosexual couples.See: http://people.virginia.edu/~jse4fp/Eggleston%20Does%20Same-Sex%20Marriage%20Affect%20Divorce%20Rates.pdfIn fact, divorce rates may be higher in US States with gay marriage bans: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/divorce-rates-appear-higher-in-states.html