Foertsch responds to criticism of column

June 5, 2018

After reading a full page of critics' responses to my May 22 article ("Government subsidies no substitute for fathers") in the Cape Gazette, I understand the angst. I apparently broke some dishes in the social justice warriors' china shop.

To quickly review, I simply questioned the current nonsense we see and hear pounding us every day about white supremacy, white privilege and racism, and whether "these efforts really serve to correct black society's ills today?"

You'd think I demanded an audit of the Clinton Foundation!

I made the point quoting Dr. Walter Williams, PhD in economics, professor, author who rationally argues that, "the undeniable truth is that neither slavery nor Jim Crow nor the harshest racism has decimated the black family like the welfare state has."

Remember, we have spent more than $20 trillion since LBJ signed the Great Society/War on Poverty legislation in 1964.

Before that in 1960, per Dr. Williams, "just 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Fifty years later, more than 70 percent were raised in single-parent families."

Is that the "Great Society" that LBJ was talking about?

Enter the onslaught from the four social justice warriors, frothing as they clicked their computer keys.

I knew Don Flood would respond because the advertisement/article from the Civil Rights Team of the Progressive Democrats of Sussex County bears his name at the bottom.

It renewed the call for, "ending state funding for the museum" because it "affirms racism."

Funny. I don't remember the liberals ever ranting about the $21.5 million of taxpayer dollars lost, including the promised 2,500 jobs, from Jack Markell's and Joe Biden's Fisker boondoggle.

Or, the massive $1.4 billion budget of the state/education/union complex that produced only 53 percent proficiency in reading for the students statewide on the 2017 SAT test.

But, this nondescript museum has to be stopped because tax funds are supporting "racism" in remembering the Delaware citizens who supported the Confederacy. Spare me.

I then made the point that Lincoln had no problem with slavery, stating that "before the Civil War started, Lincoln was supportive of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution to enshrine Southern slavery forever." Not to mention his support for deportation of American-born black slaves.

By the PDSL's standards today, Lincoln was, without a doubt, a white supremacist/white separatist.

So, I asked a simple question: "...following the PDSC's logic shouldn't we end taxpayer funding for the $25 million restoration project for the Lincoln Memorial?"

Don ignored that but asked sophomorically, "If Lincoln had 'no problem' with slavery, what compelled southern states to begin seceding after his election? Mass delusion?"

No Don. It was about economics. Here's the real story told by learned writers James King and Thomas Nelson:

"Prior to the war about 75 percent of the money to operate the federal government was derived from the southern states via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50 percent of the total 75 percent was from just four southern states, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10 to 20 percent of this tax money was being returned to the south.

"The southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the north and bled dry... The north claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England industrialists who were in control of the north were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the south to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the south.

"Abraham Lincoln had promised the northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level (about 50 percent) that exceeded even the 'Tariff of Abominations' 40 percent rate that had so infuriated the south during the 1828-32 eras... The election of a president that was anti-southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists... brought about the southern secession movement."

Then, Don preposterously adds, "As historian Eric Foner said, Lincoln hated slavery but didn't know how to end it. Neither did anyone else."

Except, of course, the British in 1833, without killing 700,000 of its citizens.

Mr. Flood ends never mentioning my main point about the problems with struggling black families. I guess he's too busy fighting to save all that tax money from the Confederate memorial.


Geary Foertsch lives in Rehoboth and writes from a libertarian perspective to promote economic liberty, non-cronyism free markets, small government and a non-intervention foreign policy. He can be contacted at


  • Accomplished writers appear in the Politics column every Tuesday on a rotating basis to explore the dynamic world of politics at the local, county, state, national and world levels.

Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter