← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · edward gibbon

Christianity, the West and America

Thread ID: 12760 | Posts: 106 | Started: 2004-03-16

edward gibbon [OP]

2004-03-16 19:50 | User Profile

On the Sam Francis forum I posted much of the below and came to regret that I exacerbated underlying tension. Yet I now feel that many on this board must face that honorable and honest differences exist about our problems. If I offend too many, I will soon know.

From my book:

[SIZE=3][CENTER][I][B]RELIGION AND MORALITY IN AMERICAN LIFE[/B][/I][/CENTER][/SIZE]

In one of the great books of the 20th century, [I]The Golden Bough[/I], British anthropologist and historian, James George Fraser, lamented the descent of the West from Roman times.  Fraser attributed the loss of the ascendancy of the West to the rise of Christianity which he termed an Oriental religion.  Prior to Christianity the West had the classical civilizations of Rome and Greece where the individual was subordinate to the community or state.  The safety of the state was the supreme aim of conduct and had precedence over the safety of the individual in this world or the world to come.  Citizens were trained from infancy in this ideal and were willing to lay down their lives to preserve the common good.  If a citizen shrank from the supreme sacrifice, he knew that he behaved cowardly in preferring his existence to the good of the country.

The spreading of Oriental religions with their emphasis on the salvation of the soul and the communion of the soul with God as the aspiration of an educated man doomed this civilization.  The prosperity and even the existence of the state shrank into insignificance.  Fraser termed the spiritual basis of the Oriental religions a "selfish and immoral doctrine" which caused the devotee to withdraw from public service and contemn present life as merely a probationary period for a better, eternal life.  With this emphasis on future life the bonds of civilized life were undone, and the disintegration of society began.  Ties of family and state were loosened, and the society began to dissolve into individual elements.  Individuals refusing to subordinate their private interests to the public good which does constitute the core of any civilization, even in the United States, caused this relapse into barbarism.  Men refused to defend their own country and to continue their own kind.  This idiocy persisted for a thousand years.  Only at the close of the Medieval Ages did native ideals of life and conduct which Fraser termed "saner, manlier views of the world" prevail in Europe.  The hiatus in the march of civilization was ended, and the tide of Oriental religion had been halted.  Writing in the years before World War I, Fraser thought the invasion was still ebbing.

One might reasonably ask what Fraser would say in present-day America.  The once dominant European element of the society had as a leadership class those who long had been retreating from public responsibility.  Many had lost the desire to reproduce and were importing babies from Asia.  This class had not glorified celibacy and poverty, but they had committed grievous injuries to any society seeking sustainable civilized values.  They had lost the quality of courage.

As T.S. Eliot remarked, the Civil War was the dominant theme in American history.  The great myth in American popular history has continued to be that the war was fought over slavery.  The  salving of the New England conscience and present-day pandering to imagined grievances of Americans of African heritage has demanded as much.  Yet intelligent men have long believed differently.

The poet, Edgar Lee Masters, in one of the great polemics of this century contested the historical memory of Abraham Lincoln.  That his work is not remembered today should be seen as proof positive that he wounded deeply.  Masters used the term, "Hebraic-Puritan", to denote the mind of what was for him the obnoxious American Christian or those exposed to that culture.  Masters dated the madness of America from the day the Puritans started the American Hebraic culture.   This exactitude should be expected from a man who was once Clarence Darrow's law partner.  The poet described the professed love of Hebraic-Puritanism as "inverted hate" which had access to the will of God and meant to carry it out even if the whole land were made a tomb.   After complimenting Robert E. Lee as being a product of the best blood in England, that of the warrior and cavalier, Masters portrayed Lincoln, whether he was an atheist, a deist, or a free thinker, as a product of the Hebraic-Puritan culture.   The great principle of the Hebraic-Puritan culture was to assume to act as one's brother's keeper, but the true motive was to be one's brother's jailer.   In great insult Masters accused Lincoln of inculcating the government of the United States with the cant and hypocrisy of Christianity and poisoning the flesh of the republic.  Previous to Lincoln presidents had not espoused the beliefs of Godly righteousness.  Many had been deists.

Driven by the Hebraic-Puritan spirit of madness, the North was led to war.  War had been initiated by radicals and fanatics like Garrison, Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Sumner whose lofty ideals were intimately connected to cruelty and would require bayonet and torch.  However, the masterminds of the Republican party did not have the same goal.  These men cared very little for the Union, but cared deeply for money and power.   During the war the new American masters bought off, ran away and evaded danger in any way possible.   During the fighting the North was riotously prosperous, and war contractors stole the country blind.  Young men doing the soldiering did not know what the fight was about at first, but later just carried on to kill and subdue.  The soldier who died at Gettysburg died not for honor or glory, but for gain.  After the war the Hebraic-Puritan abolitionist cursed the slave holder while applauding the oppressor of laborers in the mills and mines of the North.  This oppressor paid wages and was therefore a holy man.   Abolitionists and their offspring went South after the war and looted the area.  They controlled the Congress and forbade the Supreme Court from declaring any law they passed unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court acquiesced.  At long last the Thaddeus Stevenses and the corporations ceased to care for the Negro.   The war had furnished the occasion and cause for capitalism to take over the wealth of the land and subdue the liberties of the people.   Lincoln had laid the foundation for a state where carpenters and rail splitters had nothing to say in America.   The war was far more fundamental than the matter of slavery, and Lincoln knew that.   The war allowed the pious Jehovah-men to overcome the remnant of classical civilization as a "rising tide of filth might submerge a Greek temple".   The civilization based on this barbaric superstition of Hebraic-Puritanism could not produce a culture worth anything to the spirit of man.  It would be a civilization which must be destroyed for America to rise out of the hypocrisy and materialism of the Civil War.   Masters maintained the War between the States proved salvation was not of the Jews, but of the Greeks.

Writing in 1931 after the then recent World War I and 10 years before American entry into World War II, Masters added to this hypothesis.  Woodrow Wilson did many of the things Lincoln did while citing Lincoln as his authority.  Prophesying, Masters thought it highly likely a small group of men after deciding what was a cause of war and what was necessary for a successful prosecution once again would do exactly what Lincoln and Wilson did by limiting discussion and shackling the press.  In less than a decade Franklin Roosevelt proved him correct by guiding the United States into another war by stealth and deceit.  Masters considered the right of free speech so important he thought Negro slavery a "small evil" compared to a political milieu where men could not speak their thoughts.   One may reasonably deduce that Masters was not of African-American heritage.

No great literature came out of the Civil War.  The great reason was the preeminent theme of the war which suggested liberty was dishonored and destroyed.  Great themes of the war could not be used for poetry or drama because the civilization which rose from the war could not believe this.  American literary culture, founded chiefly on the Bible, could only glimpse superficially the infinite and profound currents of life.    These insights were narrowed to particular instances of injustice and suffering in societies.  Lincoln whose oratory derived from the Bible with its sacred curses and appalling prophesies based his moralities on parables in which there were no thought or real integrity.  This coruscating portrayal of Lincoln so offended the loyal sons of Illinois that talk arose of chiseling from the tombstone of Ann Rutledge, Lincoln's first love, the epitaph composed by Masters in his [I]Spoon River Anthology[/I].   The men of Illinois soon received solace from another quarter when Ambassador Katsuki Debuchi of Japan stood shoulder to shoulder with Governor Emerson of Illinois, and both spoke of their admiration for Lincoln at his tomb in Springfield, Illinois.  Ambassador Debuchi let everyone know that "From my boyhood Lincoln has been one of my heroes".   This commendation came 10 years before the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Another target of Masters' venomous criticism was Mark Twain.  Masters accused Twain of having no real political principles.  If he had, he never would have joined the Confederate Army.  He would not have deserted after joining.  He never would have joined the post-Civil War Republican Party which stole and defrauded the entire country.  For an explanation of this depraved behavior Masters attributed this deviancy to Twain's breathing of the insidious poison of Christianity.  Notwithstanding Twain's observations on the inconsistencies of the Bible which Masters dismissed as patent absurdities, Twain could not free himself of the Christian mythologies of his youth.  All of Twain's epigrams and dialectics were directed against fables not worth noticing.  Twain did not have the courage nor the insight of Nietzsche to see that Christianity was a poison and that Christendom bowed down to three Jews - Jesus, Peter and Mary.

Petr

2004-03-16 21:14 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy]With this emphasis on future life the bonds of civilized life were undone, and the disintegration of society began. Ties of family and state were loosened, and the society began to dissolve into individual elements. [/COLOR]

Kevin MacDonald completely disagrees here on the impact of Christianity on its ancient adherents, here:

[url]http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/dswrev.htm[/url]

[COLOR=DarkRed]"The ancient world was a very unpredictable place indeed, characterized by natural disasters such as earthquakes, fires, rioting, epidemics, brutal military campaigns against civilians, famines, and widespread poverty. Navigating this world was greatly facilitated by co-religionists ready to lend a helping hand and to establish economic alliances. Wilson has no hesitation in supposing that Christian charity in extending aid to fellow Christians suffering from the plague involved altruism, as indeed it did. But the result was that more Christians survived these disasters than did Pagans: Christianity was adaptive at the group level. The adaptiveness of Christianity also stemmed from its emphasis on several attitudes that were notably lacking in the Roman Empire: encouragement of large families, conjugal fidelity, high-investment parenting, and outlawing of abortion, infanticide, and non-reproductive sexual behavior. The bottom line is that Christian women did indeed out-reproduce Pagan women."[/COLOR]

[COLOR=Navy]Men refused to defend their own country and to continue their own kind. This idiocy persisted for a thousand years. [/COLOR]

What is this nonsense! If there was any secular issue that early Christian were unanimous about, it was outlawing of abortion, WILDLY practised by pagans back then.

[COLOR=DarkRed]"What did early Christians believe about Abortion"[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.bible.ca/H-Abortion.htm[/url]

To blame Christians for refusal to breed as compared to ancient pagans is to turn the truth completely upside down. The European birthrates had never been higher than during the Middle Ages.

As for "refusal to defend against invaders" - accusation, some details and examples would be nice - New Testament sure does not forbid soldiering profession.

[COLOR=Navy]Previous to Lincoln presidents had not espoused the beliefs of Godly righteousness. [/COLOR]

Well, should someone want to find evidence for America's not only Christian but theocratic roots, this would be the plave to start:

[url]http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm[/url]

And don't miss this:

[url]http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm[/url]

This article shows exactly what kind of feedback did Thomas Paine got from his fellow Founders for his mediocre anti-Christian tract, "The Age of Reason."

[COLOR=Navy]For an explanation of this depraved behavior Masters attributed this deviancy to Twain's breathing of the insidious poison of Christianity. Notwithstanding Twain's observations on the inconsistencies of the Bible which Masters dismissed as patent absurdities, Twain could not free himself of the Christian mythologies of his youth. All of Twain's epigrams and dialectics were directed against fables not worth noticing. QUOTE][/COLOR]

It is Masters himself who is a hypocritical anti-Christian bigot with "heads I win, tails you lose"-attitude: HOW THE HECK can he blame Christianity for unbeliever Twain's follies?

As a whole, I must say that I am not at all impressed at the quality of this anti-Christian article - it repeats many, many already refuted cliches, spouts glittering generalities by dozen, and couldn't be further from a fair-minded, balanced estimation.

Petr

Paleoleftist

2004-03-16 22:02 | User Profile

:yawn:

What about Marius and Sulla? Caesar and Pompeius? A century of civil wars before Christ was even born? Rome was well on the way to the trash bin before any Christian influences made themselves felt. And its machine had always been driven not so much by patriotism, but rather ambition and greed. The Roman Empire under the Pagan Caesars was a soulless entity, cruel, primitive and devoid of altruism, as often as not governed by the raving mad, nothing to be envied or imitated.

Otoh, the Byzantine Empire not only survived, but even reconquered a lot of lost ground precisely because of the Christian spiritual renewal. It was not Paganism that held back Islam in the East for century after century. In fact, wherever Islam encountered Pagans, it was usually victorious.

Ferdinand and Isabella were not Pagans. Justinian was not a Pagan. It was Christians, not Pagans, that stopped Europe from being overrun by the Muslim.

Petr

2004-03-16 22:30 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed]"And its machine had always been driven not so much by patriotism, but rather ambition and greed. The Roman Empire under the Pagan Caesars was a soulless entity, cruel, primitive and devoid of altruism, as often as not governed by the raving mad, nothing to be envied or imitated."[/COLOR]

:thumbsup:

Amen, PaleoLeftist. You know how many times those anti-Christian WNs cry and moan about the fate of those pagan Saxons conquered by Charlemagne?

Well, it was basically like any war back then when a more primitive tribe was being subdued to imperial authority, and Saxons were not squeaky-clean characters themselves, raiding and harassing Christian settlers all the time - in fact much in the same way American Indians harassed White settlers, eventually provoking some massacres.

In the end, of course, Saxons ultimately benefited from this conquest, and their life expentancies rose, and they actually STARTED TO PRACTISE SYSTEMATIC AGRICULTURE - their areas were just one big mangled forest before that.

And in any case, Charlemagne waged this civilizing warfare with much greater restraint and Christian mercy than Julius Caesar did when he conquered Gaul.

[COLOR=Navy]"Six million people had been living in Gaul before Caesar arrived in 58; one million had been killed and one million had been sold as slaves when he left in 50."[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar05.html[/url]

In addition, Caesar bragged in his memoirs, that those rebellious Gauls that he had not yet manage to kill would soon die in starvation, as he had burned down their fields.

Like the article says:

[COLOR=Navy]"Caesar himself wrote in his Commentaries on the War in Gaul that peace had been brought to the whole of Gaul. It is not hard to see that this was the peace of a graveyard."[/COLOR]

Charlemagne's most notorious massacre of Saxons involved 4,500 people, and possibly much less.

So there's some enlightening comparison for you to throw at Pagan WNs, if they ever bring that subject up again.

Petr

Ruffin

2004-03-16 22:53 | User Profile

Trying to associate the Japanese with Lincoln is quite a stretch, even for you, EG. Whatever your problem is with the Japs, as you insert it into things it doesn't belong with, endlessly, you're obviously trying to play on the many Southrons on this board.

EG, the Japs were not the aggressor of WWII, and you know it. They, like the Confederates, were provoked into firing the first shots of a war carefully crafted in Washington and New York.

As to your general argument, the Japs can hardly be accused of either practicing or employing Christianity, in any form. That you include it here, undermining your main argument, cements my opinion that your "history" is generously tailored to your ingrained public-school-learnt animosities.

Petr

2004-03-16 23:14 | User Profile

[COLOR=SeaGreen]"The men of Illinois soon received solace from another quarter when Ambassador Katsuki Debuchi of Japan stood shoulder to shoulder with Governor Emerson of Illinois, and both spoke of their admiration for Lincoln at his tomb in Springfield, Illinois. Ambassador Debuchi let everyone know that "From my boyhood Lincoln has been one of my heroes". This commendation came 10 years before the attack at Pearl Harbor."[/COLOR]

Hey Ruffin, I missed that one! What a laughable non sequitur! Christianity=Lincoln=Pearl Harbor!?!? This kind of argumentation reveals an attitude known as IRRATIONAL HOSTILITY.

Petr

Ruffin

2004-03-17 02:45 | User Profile

Sorry about focusing on a tiny and irrelevant though bizarre part of EG's post, Petr, but spotting EG's Jap-bashing has become a habit. Your own reply, of course, more completely addresses his general thesis.

I still haven't made up my mind about the role of Christianity in our history, and don't know that I ever will. I do like to compare the arguments on both sides occasionally though. No doubt that forms of Christianity, perverted or not, have been used more than once by designing men for destructive purposes, as well as by decent men for the constructive. Of course neither would apply to the Japs, and I suspect that few, if any, ever gave a positive second thought to Abraham Lincoln. They were, after all, famous for their appreciation of chivalry and honour.

Petr

2004-03-17 03:27 | User Profile

[COLOR=Navy]“I still haven't made up my mind about the role of Christianity in our history, and don't know that I ever will.”[/COLOR]

I personally believe that it is not in man’s own hands “to make a decision” for Christianity, but the Holy Spirit must help in it. Otherwise, no amount of ingenious arguments and evidences is going to do the trick.

On the other hand, I certainly believe that a righteous implementation of Christianity’s principles has done immensely much good for our people in the purely secular sense also.

Concerning the general decadence of the religious scene nowadays, I tend to believe that the “time of great apostasy” foretold in the Bible might be upon us. We must try to make the best out of this situation that we can, and prove to pagans that not all Christians have sold out their principles. “Righteous remnant” attitude, you know.

[COLOR=Navy]“No doubt that forms of Christianity, perverted or not, have been used more than once by designing men for destructive purposes, as well as by decent men for the constructive.”[/COLOR]

Well, I believe that mis- and overapplication of Christianity’s principles (in the very vague sense) by egalitarian revolutionists no more discredits them than Hitler’s murderous, tribalist treatment of Eastern Slavs during the WW II discredits the basic idea of national socialism in itself.

COLOR=DarkRed[/COLOR]

An example of the former case: the Christian idea, that every human being is not an animal, has certain basic worthiness and is an “image of God”, although in a fallen and corrupt form, has been used by egalitarians to push forward the concept of “individual rights” to a grotesque degree (gay marriage, for instance).

Well, anyways, we better get concentrated in building shelters (against globalist decadence) rather than cursing the rain.

Petr

edward gibbon

2004-03-17 18:09 | User Profile

[B]Petr[/B] and [B]Paleoleftist[/B]

These arguments were made by men I greatly respect and with whom I agree. Fraser, Edward Gibbon and Lord Bolingbroke had great concern with a culture derived from the Old Testament and even the New. Many peoples in this world do not believe in turning the cheek to be slapped. For example, Muslims and Mongols do not adhere to this philosophy.

You may mature and read what I written quite differently one day. The part about the Japanese Ambassador was in the flow of the book. You should look for people other than the moron [B]Ruffin[/B] for allies.

Paleoleftist

2004-03-17 18:21 | User Profile

[QUOTE=edward gibbon][B]Petr[/B] and [B]Paleoleftist[/B]

You are making my argument. I do not look to the Muslims, and certainly not to the civilization-destroying Plague, the Mongols, as my inspiration.

Gibbon was so biased itÃÂ´s not even funny. For a balanced view -from a non-Christian, for all I know-, look to [B]DarwinÃÂ´s Cathedral[/B]. [URL=http://www.phil-books.com/Darwins_Cathedral_Evolution_Religion_and_the_Nature_of_Society_0226901343.html]reviews[/URL]

edward gibbon

2004-03-17 18:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]Sorry about focusing on a tiny and irrelevant though bizarre part of EG's post, Petr, but spotting EG's [B][I]Jap-bashing [/I] [/B] has become a habit. Your own reply, of course, more completely addresses his general thesis.

I still haven't made up my mind about the role of Christianity in our history, and don't know that I ever will. I do like to compare the arguments on both sides occasionally though. No doubt that forms of Christianity, perverted or not, have been used more than once by designing men for destructive purposes, as well as by decent men for the constructive. Of course neither would apply to the Japs, and I suspect that few, if any, ever gave a positive second thought to Abraham Lincoln. [B]They were, after all, famous for their appreciation of chivalry and honour.[/B][/QUOTE][B]Ruffin[/B]

You have the sophistication and the intelligence of a nattering thick-skulled magpie. Events before you were born matter little to you and mean less. To speak of Japan and Japanese about honor is nonsense. [QUOTE]EG, [COLOR=Red]the Japs were not the aggressor of WWII,[/COLOR] and you know it. They, like the Confederates, were provoked into firing the first shots of a war carefully crafted in Washington and New York. [/QUOTE]World War II for the United States started in March 1941 with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act. Yet I feel future historians will end up placing our participation even before that. The Japanese invasion of China in 1932 has been marked as the start of World War II by savants about whom you would have no knowledge. [COLOR=Red][QUOTE]chivalry and [I]honour[/I][/QUOTE][/COLOR]From 1894 to 1941 Japan attacked China, Russia, France (in Vietnam), England and the United States with no declaration of war. Their butchery in China exceeded anything done in the West to include the killings by Germans in Russia and in the camps. Even the toll in the Ukraine was dwarfed by the barbaric Japanese.

Your intellectual and moral equal, Leland Gaunt, should provide solace for your depraved thoughts and rants. You truly are a despicable human being.

Petr

2004-03-18 00:47 | User Profile

[COLOR=Red][COLOR=DarkRed]"These arguments were made by men I greatly respect and with whom I agree. "[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Sorry, they were wrong (not to mention quite outdated as scholars, especially Frazer). Get over it.

[COLOR=Red]"Many peoples in this world do not believe in turning the cheek to be slapped. For example, Muslims and Mongols do not adhere to this philosophy."[/COLOR]

We-ell, my dear Eddy, allow me to enrich your ethnological knowledge!

(For the sake of argument I'll now ignore the fact that considering that "cheek-slapping" thing to be the most essential doctrine in Christianity is insane reductionism.)

This article describes Christian missionary efforts in today's Mongolia, and one local Tartar has some enlightening comments on Christianity's social superiority:

"Mongolia: the last frontier"

[url]http://website.lineone.net/~ccbs-uk/mongolia.htm[/url]

[COLOR=Navy]

'CHRISTIANITY brings values to our country that Buddhism never did and never will," says Javklan, 41, a local businessman who, like many Mongolians, uses just one name.

"The traditions of Christianity are what have helped make Western civilisation so dominant. The values of mutual respect, of caring for others, of bringing progress and good to society are all necessary for Mongolia to develop," he says.

Javklan's father was a Buddhist monk until, aged 40, he was forced by the communist government to leave his monastery and adopt a secular life.

"Choibalsan, like Stalin, spent some time as a monk and so he understood the hold that it can have and the way it can insidiously destroy a society.

"If my father had not been forced out of the monastery, I would never have been born. If Mongolia had not been a nation of celibate monks, following a religion forced on us by the Manchus to keep us weak, we would be a strong nation of 40 million people today," says Javklan."[/COLOR]

Cheerio!

Petr

Ruffin

2004-03-18 16:52 | User Profile

[QUOTE=edward gibbon] You have the sophistication and the intelligence of a nattering thick-skulled magpie. Events before you were born matter little to you and mean less. To speak of Japan and Japanese about honor is nonsense. World War II for the United States started in March 1941 with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act. Yet I feel future historians will end up placing our participation even before that. The Japanese invasion of China in 1932 has been marked as the start of World War II by savants about whom you would have no knowledge. From 1894 to 1941 Japan attacked China, Russia, France (in Vietnam), England and the United States with no declaration of war. Their butchery in China exceeded anything done in the West to include the killings by Germans in Russia and in the camps. Even the toll in the Ukraine was dwarfed by the barbaric Japanese.

Your intellectual and moral equal, Leland Gaunt, should provide solace for your depraved thoughts and rants. You truly are a despicable human being.[/QUOTE] Did World War II begin in 1932 or in 1941? Good question. Was the Sino-Japanese war a "world war", in that the United States was obliged to intervene?

Japan's wars with its Chinese and Russian neighbors were local and therefore not exactly without precedent in the history of nations. They certainly had nothing to do with American provocations of Japan, only for idiot savants in justifying American deaths on that side of the globe. As for Vietnam and SE Asia, shall we examine the benefits derived from western presence there? At least Spain had a historic claim to Cuba, the Japs not ridiculously claiming that the occupation of territories within their sphere necessitated invasions of the western hemisphere, as the United States proceeded immediately to do with Spanish possessions as far away as the Philippines. No doubt the Japs expected such foolishness from the United States, having been similarly opened up and made to participate internationally by traditional American methods of diplomacy. Japan certainly had as much right, if not more, due to locale, to take Vietnam from France as France had to claim it for herself. As pathetic an entity as Britain has become, perhaps the Irish can now invite Japan to liberate it at last, unless that would still be deemed objectionable by those British gentlemen who've so resented Japanese incursions into their Asian holdings. But alas, it'd be the Japs who would, as they have in the past, been at a loss to appreciate the long term benefits of such provocative internationalism.

Exactly what outrage is it that's felt by western nations at the thought of Japanese colonialism in Asia? Japan never threatened any western nations proper, only a couple of their Asian and Pacific colonies, and there only with reasonable cause (Before Pearl Harbor explodes forth from your innerds, consider how it came to be thought of as American in the first place). Sorry, the Japs aren't the ones occupying the world in furtherance of their manifest destiny. The last time I looked, something like 135 out of 192 nations were occupied by American troops. How has America achieved this record if not by both actual and threatened (oooh, oooh, here it comes - ) barbarism and butchery (gasp, shreik)? Ask any recipient of it whence comes meddling, provocation, total war, "barbarism" and "butchery", followed of course by permanent occupation, and prison for anyone who laughs at the atrocity stories American "historians" feel it necessary to endlessly promulgate to justify liberations.

When you've finished that assignment, kindly calculate the benefits of American realpolitik per its cost in its own blood and America's probable future, as it self-destructs, at the hands of a grateful world.

I won't bother listing all the barbarisms initiated by the United States and Britain. I think that even you know what a ludicrous comparison to Japan's few conflicts with the rest of the world that would be.

There, you can wipe your sophistication and intelligence from your chin now, if you can find it (your chin, that is).

My apology to the initiator of this thread for steering it off course. I didn't mean to, but I should've known better. Please, Mods, give this branch of it its own home, as you see fit.

edward gibbon

2004-03-19 19:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Red][COLOR=DarkRed]"These arguments were made by men I greatly respect and with whom I agree. "[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Sorry, they were wrong (not to mention quite outdated as scholars, especially Frazer). Get over it.[/QUOTE]Mongols meet the Muslims (from the 1911 [I]Brittanica[/I]) [QUOTE]The terror of the Mongol name induced Rukneddin Gurshah II. (Rokn al-din), the chief of the Assassins, to deprecate the wrath of Hulagu by offers of submission, and he was so far successful that he was able to purchase a temporary immunity from massacre by dismantling fifty of the principal fortresses in Kohistan. But when once the country had thus been left at the mercy of the invaders, their belief in the old saying Stone dead hath no fellow sharpened their battle-axes, and, sparing neither man, woman, nor child, they exterminated the unhappy people. Rukneddin having been killed, 1256 (see AssAssINs), Hulagu marched across the snowy mountains in the direction of Bagdad to attack the last Abbasid caliph and his Seljuk protectors. On arriving before the town he demanded its surrender. This being refused, he laid siege to the walls in the usual destructive Mongol fashion, and at length, finding resistance hopeless, the caliph was induced to give himself up and to open the gates to his enemies. On the 15th of February 1258 the Mongols entered the walls and sacked the city.(see CALIPHATE ad fin). While at Bagdad Hulagu gave his astronomer, Nsir al-din permission to build an observatory. The town of Maragha was the site chosen, and, under the superintendence of Ngsir al-dIn and four western Asiatic astronomers who were associated with him, a handsome observatory was built, and furnished with armillary spheres and astrolabes, and with a beautifully-executed terrestrial globe showing the five climates. The fall of Bagdad was almost contemporaneous with the end of the Seljuks of Konia as an independent power, though their actual destruction did not take place until 1308 (see SELJUKS). One terrible result of the Mongol invasion was a fearful famine, which desolated the provinces of Irak-Arabi, Mesopotamia, Syria and Rum. But, though the inhabitants starved, the Mongols had strength and energy left to continue their onward march into Syria. Aleppo was stormed and sacked, Damascus surrendered (1260) and [COLOR=Red]Hulagu was meditating the capture of Jerusalem with the object of restoring it to the Christians [/COLOR] when he received the news of Mangus death, and, as in duty bound, at once set out on his return to Mongolia, leaving Kitboga (Kitubuka) in command of the Mongol forces in Syria.[/QUOTE]Fraser will live long after you have met your fate. [QUOTE]"If my father had not been forced out of the monastery, I would never have been born. If Mongolia had not been a nation of celibate monks, following a religion forced on us by the Manchus to keep us weak, we would be a strong nation of 40 million people today," says Javklan."[/QUOTE]The Chinese introduced the Tibetan form of Buddhism explicitly to keep the Mongols weak. Mongols are not remembered fondly by Russians, Indians or Chinese. In fact the Japanese so feared them they named the winds that destroyed their invasion fleet the [COLOR=Red][B][I]kamikazes[/I][/B][/COLOR], or divine winds. I urge hesitation in resurrecting the Mongols.

Paleoleftist

2004-03-19 19:46 | User Profile

[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Mongols meet the Muslims (from the 1911 [I]Brittanica[/I]) I urge hesitation in resurrecting the Mongols.[/QUOTE]

Ehhh, did I miss something, or who wants to resurrect them? Bury them, I say, and all similar. :alucard:

But wasnÃÂ´t it you who brought up the Mongols as a [B]positive[/B] :wacko: example?

Paleoleftist

2004-03-19 19:50 | User Profile

Post Scriptum: Or did you mean Christianity is going to reintroduce the spirit of Genghis-Khan into the Mongols? :jester: Not likely.

edward gibbon

2004-03-19 19:53 | User Profile

[B]Ruffin[/B] You foolishly wrote: [QUOTE]Japan's wars with its Chinese and Russian neighbors were local and therefore not exactly without precedent in the history of nations. They certainly had nothing to do with American provocations of Japan, only for idiot savants in justifying American deaths on that side of the globe.[/QUOTE] Quite possibly do you mean idiots-savant, or are you content with exhibiting your mastery of a foreign language.

Further pontificating: [QUOTE]No doubt the Japs expected such foolishness from the United States, having been similarly opened up and made to participate internationally by traditional American methods of diplomacy. Japan certainly had as much right, if not more, due to locale, to take Vietnam from France as France had to claim it for herself.[/QUOTE]In my masterful work I took a much more mature view: [QUOTE]Long before the arrival of Commodore Perry in Tokyo Bay the Japanese had direct contact with the West, most notably the Dutch for commercial contacts and with the Spanish and Portuguese for whom religious proselytizing had more significance. The Portuguese introduced the gun in the early 1500's, and Japanese society warmly embraced the firearm. The triumph at the battle of Sekigahara in 1600 which led to the consolidation of Tokugawa rule in Japan was accomplished largely by the success of citizen militia whose prowess with the gun largely negated the samurai with his sword. On that day over 230,000 men were in the field, and though there were cannons, they were ineffective. The gun dominated. For some Japanese the proud boast has been that more people were killed with firearms at Sekigahara than in any battle until Waterloo some 200 years later.

During the two and a half centuries of the Tokugawa Bakufu the Japanese maintained minimal contact with the rest of the world by using a Dutch trading post located on a small island in Nagasaki Harbor. As presented in American history books, the entry by Commodore Perry always has been shown to be a forced one, but one excused by the eventual conferring of material blessings on the unsuspecting, but soon to be grateful Japanese. Some words written by an officer aboard the [I]USS Susquehanna [/I] in 1852 should be instructive even today. The unnamed officer noted the Japanese, though not in the European sense of the word, a military people were still, even in that light, not to be disregarded; for they are admitted to be brave and to entertain less regard for human life than any race on earth. (italics in contemporary newspaper account) The officer estimated American ships with their guns could destroy much property and many lives with little danger to themselves. Then the officer noted that on a truly peaceful mission one vessel would have been far more effective than the number sent.

Another writer on March 31, 1854 aboard the Powhatten found the Japanese to be kind, friendly, and courteous and pleased with the prospect of more extended intercourse with their fellow men than that offered by the few Dutch and Chinese in Nagasaki.  The Rotary-like toast that Japan and California might wake and see one another one morning was particularly well received.  [COLOR=Red][I]To crown the whole evening of good cheer some members of the ship's company entertained with Ethiopian singing which already had established a following in Japan.   How Ethiopian singing preceded the arrival of Americans was not made clear, but obviously the Japanese had already been exposed to cultural imperialism.[/I][/COLOR]

Another article on December 1,1854 in the New York [I]Times [/I] describes as to how the seclusion of the Tokugawa Bakufu was overcome when the Japanese authorities were assured no hostile inroad or forcible occupation of their soil were goals of any sort.   The writer compared the Japanese with the Chinese and was sure most Americans thought the Japanese superior to the Chinese in wealth and civilization.  He remarked while the Japanese were not as industrious as the Chinese, they were clearly their superiors in producing art.  What has been of enormous contemporary interest was the explanation of the trade tactics of the Japanese.  The export of gold and silver was to be banned, [COLOR=Red][I]and the exchange rate was to be artificially maintained against the dollar to promote trade advantages as defined by the Japanese authorities.  This practice has survived to the present[/I][/COLOR].[/QUOTE]

You shamelessly wrote: [QUOTE]Exactly what outrage is it that's felt by western nations at the thought of Japanese colonialism in Asia? Japan never threatened any western nations proper, only a couple of their Asian and Pacific colonies, and there only with reasonable cause (Before Pearl Harbor explodes forth from your innerds, consider how it came to be thought of as American in the first place). Sorry, the Japs aren't the ones occupying the world in furtherance of their manifest destiny. [COLOR=Red]The last time I looked, something like 135 out of 192 nations were occupied by American troops.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]For their advantage the Japanese attacked Germany in World War I and seized their concessions in China. The United States may have bases in 135 countries (I do not know), but to say the United States occupies those countries in silliness indicative of a petulant 12 year old.

I sagely wrote: [QUOTE]Less than a year later the American side was complaining bitterly about the faithlessness of the Japanese and the humiliations inflicted upon them. Some American businessmen were demanding that certain privileges, previously granted as favors, should be given them as rights. Two sorely vexed businessmen wrote the world was given to mankind, and the progress of civilization was such that no nation or people had the right to exclude themselves from intercourse with the rest of the world. These gentlemen claimed the exclusion by the Japanese of foreigners was a just cause for war. Even allowing for more than the usual amount of bluster by blowhards, these sentiments were not way out of line in a society where accumulation of wealth was seen as a sign of God's favor. The reentry by the Japanese into world affairs was greatly accelerated by the opening of their country to world trade on their terms; however, one would wish the United States throughout the years had been far less willing to be seen as the prime sponsor for this flowering.[/QUOTE]American businessmen have long believed that they are responsible for spreading wealth and happiness. Damn the consequences for those who doubt.

Petr

2004-03-19 20:06 | User Profile

I believe that if Christianity really manages to take hold on Mongols, it will do the same thing to them as it did to Vikings: it will transform them, instead of being pests to their neighbors, into moral, industrious people that do not engage in wars except when provoked.

Like this Javklan-dude said:

[COLOR=DarkRed]"The traditions of Christianity are what have helped make Western civilisation so dominant. The values of mutual respect, of caring for others, of bringing progress and good to society are all necessary for Mongolia to develop," he says."[/COLOR]

No sign of Genghis-Khan here.

Petr

2004-03-19 20:23 | User Profile

And yes, eddy, I'm aware of that pro-Christian impact among Mongols:

[COLOR=Red]

“Hulagu was bitterly hostile to Islam, and much influenced by his Buddhist and Nestorian Christian entourage. His wife Dokaz Khatun and his principal lieutenant Kitbogha or Kitbuka were Christians, and a portable tent-church travelled with him, in which mass was celebrated daily. Mongke is said to have promised the Christian King of Armenia, who visited Karakorum in 1255, that the Mongols would restore Jerusalem to the Crusaders when they had destroyed the power of the Muslims. The Asian Christians were filled with extravagant hopes and expected the rapid downfall of Islam: the European nations were less sanguine.”

“ The Mongol army, in composition more Turkish than Mongol, and including contingents from the Christian kingdoms of Armenia and Georgia, was probably the largest, best equipped and best disciplined that had ever issued from the steppes of Central Asia.”

“Hulagu ordered the Caliph to come in person to his camp, with his family and retinue, to tell his people to stop fighting, and to give up his wealth and treasure. His commands were obeyed, and the metropolis of Islam was abandoned to the merciless bloodlust of the conquerors. The palaces, colleges and mosques were plundered and burnt; the cultural accumulation of five centuries perished in the flames, and the appalling figure of 800,000 is the lowest estimate given of the number of men, women and children who were slaughtered in the streets and houses. The Christians, gathered in a church under their patriarch, alone were spared.”

“The Christians of the East hailed the ruin of Baghdad (1258) in the spirit of the 'Babylon is fallen, is fallen! ' of the Book of Revelation, and looked forward to the end of half a millennium of Muslim domination. Hulagu's armies were soon in Syria: Aleppo resisted, was stormed and the non-Christian population massacred; Damascus gave in without a fight, three Christian leaders (the Mongol commander Kitbogha, the King of Armenia and the Frankish Count Bohemund of Antioch) riding through its streets and forcing Muslims to bow to the cross;”[/COLOR]

Longer description here:

[url]http://www.iun.edu/~historyn/Turkmong.htm[/url]

Petr

Ruffin

2004-03-20 07:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Quite possibly do you mean idiots-savant, or are you content with exhibiting your mastery of a foreign language.[/QUOTE] Thank you for the correction. So far, the incorrect pluralising of idiot-savant is my only linguistic error not to have escaped your notice, and I think, your intense familiarity. Your sentence should end with a question mark instead of a period, O.K.?

I appreciate the second-hand personal impressions of Japan that you offer in your latest diatribe for their lack of substantial reflection in the actual events I noted, or even in patterns of national behaviour which that actual history reveals. It is roughly on a qualitative plain with Schindler's List. If you could refute what I've supplied with anything other than anecdotes and condescending salutations, I know that you would, so I'll leave it as it stands, as I'll also leave you to your amusing pleas for acknowledgement of the value of your, um, scholarly worth. I think that no more perfect example could be found, of the mentality behind a bloated, denying and suicidally arrogant America, than you.

"Never be haughty to the humble. Never be humble to the haughty." ~ Jefferson Davis :thumbsup:

edward gibbon

2004-03-22 19:06 | User Profile

[B]Petr[/B] and [B]Paleoleftist[/B]

It may take some time to persuade you that Christianity has not been viewed by all as a blessing. I extract the following from my book for the lurkers. [QUOTE][CENTER][SIZE=3][I][B]The Orient and America before the Civil War[/B][/I][/SIZE][/CENTER]

When America does think of China or Japan these days, the concern generally is limited to commercial or military interests with very little appreciation of how extensive and deep some of the American influence has been at least as seen from the American perspective.  Whether or not the Chinese or Japanese regard 150 years as truly influential would be debatable.

[I]In 1847 after reading a missionary tract on Christian religion a Chinese inquisitor, Hung Hsiu-chuan presented himself to Isaachar Roberts of Smyrna County, Tennessee for a two month course of intensive Bible study in Canton, China.   Two months would not have been sufficient for firebrands like Reverend Roberts to impart more than a superficial understanding of the Christian religion, but what Hung did learn proved to have immense consequences.  The moral rigidity of the Ten Commandments and wrathful retribution of the Old Testament overwhelmed any appeal the existing Confucian ethic had for him.  Not only did Hung become a believer, but he came to have visions and to think of himself as the younger brother of Jesus Christ.  Convinced of his righteousness, Hung began to destroy the idols of other religions, most notably the Confucian ancestor tablets.  The earthly effect was to lead Hung into rebellion against the Manchu dynasty so a new social order could be created.  What followed was one of the great revolutionary movements in the history of the world.[/I]

The Taiping Rebellion has been generally dated from 1851 to 1864.  Whole of central China and large parts of the North and South, altogether an area with more than a hundred million inhabitants, were affected.  A generally accepted figure for the number of dead caused by the fighting was twenty million.  [COLOR=Red][B][I]This war lasted three times as long as the American Civil War which occurred during these years, and in China more than thirty times as many died.[/I][/B][/COLOR]   Many current historians have pointed out the areas where Hung had his greatest success were the same regions where Mao and his communists dominated almost a hundred years later.  As much as some may want to take credit for this American influence on this Chinese rebellion, the main cause must be seen as domestic Chinese considerations.  Karl Marx, writing in the New York Daily Tribune of June 14, 1853 attributed much of the outbreak of violence on forcing on China that soporific drug called opium.   Later in June 1857 he ridiculed the official British explanation that the cause of the hostilities was the refusal of the Chinese Government to accept Britain, America, France and other great western nations as her equals, but maintained the origin was the refusal of the Chinese to let themselves be poisoned with opium for the benefit of the British East India Company and a few unprincipled British, French or American traders.   About 1798 the British East India Company ceased to be direct exporters of opium, but they became its producers.  The opium monopoly was established in India, and the ships of the East India Company were forbidden  to export opium.  In one of the crowning hypocrisies of the British, who had many, ships which were licensed to ship to China had to pay a penalty if they freighted opium other than that of the East India Company.   How could China regard as friends those great nations which demanded the right to sell opium in China where it was unknown and which enslaved and greatly demeaned the economic and moral health of her people, Marx asked?  The affinity the Chinese long held for Marx predated his largely discredited theories on economics and history.  Later in the 1930's the Japanese did much the same and were branded an outlaw state by the League of Nations for selling opium in China.  In an act of historical retribution the communists, either Vietnamese or Chinese, accommodated the sale of heroin and opium to American troops during the Vietnam War with more than a little help from America's South Vietnam allies.

What surely must concern the rulers of present day China was the rapidity of acceptance and possible cataclysmic consequences of the non-Chinese, pseudo-Christian ideas spread by Western emissaries.  The influence of Reverend Roberts in Canton could be dwarfed by the appearances of clones, both western and Chinese, of Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert or a Reverend Ike on national television.  As bad as these influences could be, the arrival of MTV with its endorsement of youthful primacy and idiocy could push their culture right down the tubes if the vile behavior and language could be accurately translated.

Long before the arrival of Commodore Perry in Tokyo Bay the Japanese had direct contact with the West, most notably the Dutch for commercial contacts and with the Spanish and Portuguese for whom religious proselytizing had more significance.  The Portuguese introduced the gun in the early 1500's, and Japanese society warmly embraced the firearm.  The triumph at the battle of Sekigahara in 1600 which led to the consolidation of Tokugawa rule in Japan was accomplished largely by the success of citizen militia whose prowess with the gun largely negated the samurai with his sword.  On that day over 230,000 men were in the field, and though there were cannons, they were ineffective.  The gun dominated.   For some Japanese the proud boast has been that more people were killed with firearms at Sekigahara than in any battle until Waterloo some 200 years later.  Then, in one of the most successful public safety programs in history the gun was banned, and the samurai and his code were placed once again on top of the social hierarchy.   The commoner was denied the gun that had negated the sword of the samurai.  In Europe Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset had observed the nobility while distinguished by their courage, leadership and sense of responsibility had always been lacking in the virtues of the head.  They had permitted bourgeois forces using gunpowder and firearms to overwhelm them and dominate the political process.   The Japanese nobility did not relinquish their prerogatives.[/QUOTE]I feel sure that the current rulers of China still maintain a distrust of the proclaimed benefits of Christianity.  They much prefer the order and safety of Confucianism.

edward gibbon

2004-03-22 19:18 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ruffin]I appreciate the [I][B]second-hand personal impressions of Japan [/B] [/I] that you offer in your latest diatribe for their lack of substantial reflection in the actual events I noted, or even in patterns of national behaviour which that actual history reveals. It is roughly on a qualitative plain with Schindler's List. If you could refute what I've supplied with anything other than anecdotes and condescending salutations, I know that you would, so I'll leave it as it stands, as I'll also leave you to your amusing pleas for acknowledgement of the value of your, um, scholarly worth. I think that no more perfect example could be found, of the mentality behind a bloated, denying and suicidally arrogant America, than you.

"Never be haughty to the humble. Never be humble to the haughty." ~ Jefferson Davis :thumbsup:[/QUOTE]I did study the Japanese language for a year at Monterey and lived there for almost 4 years with 2 being in the military. Not quite second hand. I am not first to note the Japanese sense of honor and betrayal - From my book: [QUOTE][COLOR=Red]Another aspect of the triumph of Tokugawa noted by the British historian, George Sansom, was his road to power was marked by his breaking of oath after oath he had given to his adversaries. The Japanese, who historically have been result-oriented people with little patience for moralizing, have had the Tokugawa imprint burned into national memory[/COLOR].[/QUOTE] The above is largely based on George Sansom's [B][I]A History of Japan: 1334-1615[/I][/B], p398 (Stanford University, 1987).

You should realize, if you were any smarter, that the reason Japan opened up to the outside world was that after 250 years of the Tokugawa [I]bakufu[/I] they had descended from having perhaps the world's best army to a nation that could not defend its borders. The nation doing the most probing was Russia. In 1600 Russian interest was in the Urals. By 1850 Russia had crossed the Pacific and was in Alaska and California. Your watching cartoons and fantasizing has not permitted you to know such things.

Like yourself I blame your parents for not teaching manners and an honest inquiring mind to their offspring. However, this late in life you should take it upon yourself to learn. Your bountiful ignorance is an affront to this forum.

Paleoleftist

2004-03-22 23:09 | User Profile

[QUOTE=edward gibbon][B]Petr[/B] and [B]Paleoleftist[/B]

It may take some time to persuade you that Christianity has not been viewed by all as a blessing. I extract the following from my book for the lurkers ...[/QUOTE]

What have Opium and fire arms to do with Christianity?

I advise sticking to one topic at a time in your next book, so as not to confuse your readers and yourself more than necessary.

Petr

2004-03-23 00:01 | User Profile

[COLOR=Blue]“I feel sure that the current rulers of China still maintain a distrust of the proclaimed benefits of Christianity. They much prefer the order and safety of Confucianism.”[/COLOR]

Oh boy, eddy gibbon, now I can really say what General Patton said when Hitler started his last attack in the Battle of the Bulge:

[COLOR=DarkGreen]"This time the German has stuck his hand in a meat grinder—and I've got hold of the handle."[/COLOR]

How do you like this quotation:

[COLOR=Red]"I would make Christianity the official religion of China" -- China's former President, Jiang Zemin[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6386[/url]

David Aikman, Time magazine's former bureau chief in Beijing, released a very intriguing book last December, where he argues that Christianity is slowly (and not so slowly!) but surely taking hold on Chinese people:

[COLOR=Red]“You won't hear about it from Dan Rather or the New York Times, but there's a new revolutionary movement sweeping China. This movement could, within just a few years, transform China and alter the political alliances and balances of the entire world. It's called Christianity.

“Christianity, explains David Aikman in Jesus in Beijing, is growing so fast that by 2050 or even earlier, China could be one of the largest Christian nations in the world. Nor is Christianity's growth unanimously resisted by China's authoritarian top brass. Aikman, Time magazine's former bureau chief in Beijing, reveals that even top Chinese officials -- including former President Jiang Zemin -- have identified Christianity as the secret of the West's success, and want to bring that success to China.

”Those officials, of course, want to bring Christianity's economic and social benefits to China, without allowing it to become in any real sense a Christian nation. But Jesus in Beijing provides provocative evidence that those officials may be powerless to halt Christianity's spread, and that both Protestant and Catholic groups are flowering today despite the continuing threat of persecution. ”[/COLOR]

THIS is what I meant when I said that you rely on outdated sources: to be a genuine scholar, you must not only master your golden oldies, but you’ve got to keep your eye on the latest scholarship and book publications.

Like in the Roman Empire, Christians are still half-heartedly persecuted, but they are going to take over in the long run – and it’s going to be a good thing both for Chinese themselves and for their neighbors too. I would dare say that the Christianization of Chinese will also be “good for Whites”.

edward gibbon

2004-03-23 17:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Blue]Ã¢â¬ÅI feel sure that the current rulers of China still maintain a distrust of the proclaimed benefits of Christianity. They much prefer the order and safety of Confucianism.Ã¢â¬Â[/COLOR]

Oh boy, eddy gibbon, now I can really say what General Patton said when Hitler started his last attack in the Battle of the Bulge:

[COLOR=DarkGreen]"This time the German has stuck his hand in a meat grinderÃ¢â¬âand I've got hold of the handle."[/COLOR]Petr[/QUOTE]I now confront people who quote movie lines to me as facts. May all the Gods help us.

[QUOTE]How do you like this quotation:"I would make Christianity the official religion of China" -- China's former President, Jiang Zemin[/QUOTE]Did you hear this from Pat Robertson? [QUOTE]THIS is what I meant when I said that you rely on outdated sources: to be a genuine scholar, you must not only master your golden oldies, but youÃ¢â¬â¢ve got to keep your eye on the latest scholarship and book publications.[/QUOTE]You should be demonstrating on the streets about song lyrics.

edward gibbon

2004-03-23 17:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]What have Opium and fire arms to do with Christianity?

[I][COLOR=Red]I advise sticking to one topic at a time in your next book, so as not to confuse your readers and yourself more than necessary[/COLOR][/I].[/QUOTE]I wrote for people much more mature than you.

Paleoleftist

2004-03-23 19:14 | User Profile

[QUOTE=edward gibbon]I wrote for people much more mature than you.[/QUOTE]

Mature to the point of senility, perhaps? :tongue:

Petr

2004-03-24 05:35 | User Profile

[COLOR=Red]- “I now confront people who quote movie lines to me as facts. May all the Gods help us.”[/COLOR]

The joke’s on you, chump: that is an actual Patton quote, not a movie line.

[COLOR=Red]- “Did you hear this from Pat Robertson?”[/COLOR]

Heh, nice way of saying that you don’t have any kind of answer to my point.

Do you deny what David Aikman argues about the situation in China, and if so, on what basis?

[COLOR=Red]- ”You should be demonstrating on the streets about song lyrics.”[/COLOR]

I don’t quite seem to get the point of your lame ad hominem.

You’re completely wrong on Christianity. Your book is in vain. Humbly acknowledge it, poor heathen.

Petr

Walter Yannis

2004-03-24 16:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Otoh, the Byzantine Empire not only survived, but even reconquered a lot of lost ground precisely because of the Christian spiritual renewal. It was not Paganism that held back Islam in the East for century after century. In fact, wherever Islam encountered Pagans, it was usually victorious.

Ferdinand and Isabella were not Pagans. Justinian was not a Pagan. It was Christians, not Pagans, that stopped Europe from being overrun by the Muslim.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I wonder how much Byzantine was weakened by the iconoclast controversy. Keep in mind that the drive to destroy icons was under Islamic influence. Byzantium lost confidence in itself, it would seem.

As to Lincoln, he was a great man who did what he needed to do to save his country from being torn asunder. At bottom the war was about slavery - it was about two competing economic systems that emerged due to the peculiar institution. Lincoln had the right program in that regard, too - separation from blacks via colonization to West Africa. Of course, he was killed and then the crazies in his own party took over. The rest is history, as they say.

Which isn't to say that the emerging capitalism of the North was a good thing any more than it is to say that slavery in the South was a good thing. They both had their moral problems. But whatever the problem, we're one nation, one people, one sovereign territory. That's what the fight was about. Once you're in, there's no going out.

I admire Lincoln greatly, including his suspension of habeus corpus, press freedoms, and other measures. You do what you have to do, my friends. All bets are off in times of war and insurrection. The measure of his greatness, and the measure of our greatness, is the fact that we restored those legal protections when the danger had passed.

But only when the danger is passed. Our survival as a unified European, Christian and English-speaking counrty trumps absolutely ALL other considerations, be they political or moral.

Hell, FDR rounded up all our Nips and put them in camps without so much as a fare-thee-well. Was that a violation of due process? Ummmm . . . yeah, sure was. Was it the right thing to do at the time? Damned straight. I don't have much good to say about FDR generally, but that was a good move. If you go to war, the first thing you do is close the borders and deal with potential fifth columns. The fact that Shrub didn't do exactly that after we were attacked on 9-11 shows that he's either a traitor or a fool. The fact that he imposed the Patriot Act measures against Americans and NOT against infiltrators from Mexico speaks volumes in support of the former over the latter.

You do what you gotta do, and then when the danger passes you restore legal protections, release the imprisoned, etc. Heck, if you really want to indulge yourself, feel guilty about it later and pay reparations like we did to Japanese Americans. I personally try to avoid those cheap sorts of thrills. But in life you either choose to pay the price to win, or you choose to lose. Lincoln chose to pay the price to win, and as Vince Lombardi said, winning ain't everything, it's the only thing. Lincoln understood that, and that makes him a truly great man.

I pray that I wouldn't hesitate to do all those things and a thousand times worse to save the racial, cultural, and territorial integrity of the American nation. And kudos to any who does them when duty so requires.

Walter

Texas Dissident

2004-03-24 16:58 | User Profile

Walter,

We had a unified European, Christian and English-speaking country -- the Confederate States of America -- and the tyrant Lincoln killed it. It's been all downhill ever since.

The Southern Cross:

[IMG]http://americancivilwar.com/south/conflag/confed_b.gif[/IMG]

weisbrot

2004-03-24 17:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] As to Lincoln, he was a great man who did what he needed to do to save his country from being torn asunder. At bottom the war was about slavery - it was about two competing economic systems that emerged due to the peculiar institution. Lincoln had the right program in that regard, too - separation from blacks via colonization to West Africa. Of course, he was killed and then the crazies in his own party took over. The rest is history, as they say.

But only when the danger is passed. Our survival as a unified European, Christian and English-speaking counrty trumps absolutely ALL other considerations, be they political or moral.

Totally disagree. Lincoln's actions were not taken against an invasive fifth column. His war was fought against a Christian nation that was throwing off the tyranny of an overreaching federal government and the economic slavery it promoted. The suspension of habeus corpus, the closure of hundreds of newspapers, the attempts to arrest judges, and the prosecution of members of Congress were for the most part actions taken against white Christians of the North who supported the South in their Constitutionally sound and fully legal decision to secede. These aren't the actions of a culture warrior, they're the tyrannies of a despot in league with soul-less mercantilists. Sound familiar?

Additionally, Lincoln was using large numbers of immigrant conscripts to slaughter the best of a generation from the white Christian South. Who really benefits from that? And to credit slavery as the cause of the "competing economic systems" (actually the North's parasitic plundering of the South) is just plain silliness.

Lincoln chose to pay the price to win, and as Vince Lombardi said, winning ain't everything, it's the only thing. Lincoln understood that, and that makes him a truly great man.

Walter[/QUOTE]

Given the fact that Lincolns heroism was directly responsible for the deaths of 300,000 white Christians from the South, with total disregard for their racial, cultural and territorial integrity, I find this statement to be incomprehensible. [On edit, I'll change that to "bizarre".]

Walter, reload.

Walter Yannis

2004-03-24 20:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Walter,

We had a unified European, Christian and English-speaking country -- the Confederate States of America -- and the tyrant Lincoln killed it. It's been all downhill ever since.[/QUOTE]

Tex, Weisbrot - I respectfully disagree.

Our forefathers signed a covenant we call the Constitution that bound them and continues to bind us all.

Now, under that agreement the Congress has clear and express authority to PUT DOWN all insurrections.

From the Constitution:

[QUOTE]Sec. 8 clause 1: The Congress shall have Power . .

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [B]suppress Insurrections [/B] and repel Invasions; [/QUOTE]

The spark that ignited the Great Conflagration was the refusal on the part of some parties to that agreement to heed the lawful will of Congress and to ante up on the Militia committment. Why? Because they were the instigators of the very insurrection the Constitution unambiguously authorizes Congress to quell.

As to Lincoln's harsh measures, he enjoyed clear and express Constitutional authority to kick ass to fulfill his Constitutional madate to quell insurrections by all means necessary:

[QUOTE]Section 9 Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, [B]unless when in Cases of Rebellion [/B] or Invasion the public Safety may require it. [/QUOTE]

Hey, as far as I can see the man was just doing his job.

Not that I particularly want to re-fight the Civil War.

In fact, I'll say no more.

Warmest regards,

Walter

weisbrot

2004-03-24 23:25 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Tex, Weisbrot - I respectfully disagree.

Our forefathers signed a covenant we call the Constitution that bound them and continues to bind us all.

Now, under that agreement the Congress has clear and express authority to PUT DOWN all insurrections.

From the Constitution:

As to Lincoln's harsh measures, he enjoyed clear and express Constitutional authority to kick ass to fulfill his Constitutional madate to quell insurrections by all means necessary:

Hey, as far as I can see the man was just doing his job.

Not that I particularly want to re-fight the Civil War.

In fact, I'll say no more.

Warmest regards,

Walter[/QUOTE]

Pardon me while I unlimber the squirrel gun.

Now Walter, where exactly does it say in the Constitution that the union of the states was permanent? Why were Virginia (God bless Her), Rhode Island and New York allowed to ratify the Constitution while specifically reserving their rights to state rule? Why did West Point teach that secession was a states right, pre- War of Northern Aggression?

And why wasn't Jefferson Davis- or any other Confederate citizen- tried for treason by a Congress just doing their job?

There was no insurrection because there was no prohibition against secession. Lincoln committed war crimes against Christian southerners and stole their private property.

Now git.

Walter Yannis

2004-03-25 06:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Now Walter, where exactly does it say in the Constitution that the union of the states was permanent? [/QUOTE]

That of course was the issue, and Lincoln argued the case that the Union was permanent extremely well. He convinced me, at least. That said, I freely admit that the South had colorable arguments in favor of a State's right to secede, I just don't think they were particularly strong. They certainly fell before Lincoln's compelling rhetoric, IMHO.

Besides, the war settled the question once and for all, and so this discussion would appear to be academic. BTW, I'm not one of these folks who is willling to divide our territory into racial enclaves. It's our land, and the others will either accept our rule or go elsewhere. Again, that issue has been settled, and there's no going back on it.

Anyway, strictly as an academic exercise, let me turn the question around on you: if the Union wasn't permanent, why was Congress authorized to put down insurrections?

And here's a follow-up question: since Southern states had all signed on to the Constitution including its provision that Congress can summon militia to put down rebellion, by what right did they refuse to comply with the express will of Congress to send militia to put down the rebellion?

Walter

weisbrot

2004-03-25 13:15 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That of course was the issue, and Lincoln argued the case that the Union was permanent extremely well. He convinced me, at least. That said, I freely admit that the South had colorable arguments in favor of a State's right to secede, I just don't think they were particularly strong. They certainly fell before Lincoln's compelling rhetoric, IMHO.

Anyway, strictly as an academic exercise, let me turn the question around on you: if the Union wasn't permanent, why was Congress authorized to put down insurrections?

Walter[/QUOTE]

This reminds me of the bar scene in "The Outlaw Josie Wales".

There was no insurrection, except for the ones Lincoln was trying to foment in the Confederate states.

Why should the Southern states provide militia to a Congress that had no authority over them?

Why were there no prosecutions for treason following the war, given the strength and moral authority of Lincoln's rhetoric?

The war may or may not have settled the question; but it did open the door for the Fourteenth Amendment. Just another improvement on the perfect union, right?

Walter Yannis

2004-03-25 14:52 | User Profile

[weisbrot] [QUOTE]This reminds me of the bar scene in "The Outlaw Josie Wales". [/QUOTE]

The best western ever made, IMHO. Of course, I'd have to give The Unforgiven a close second.

[QUOTE]There was no insurrection, except for the ones Lincoln was trying to foment in the Confederate states. [/QUOTE]

Well, that's a question of fact, but how do you explain Fort Sumter? Lincoln said upon taking office that he didn't want the fight, that he'd leave slavery in place where it already existed, and so forth. He didn't want it, and no sane man would.

[QUOTE]Why should the Southern states provide militia to a Congress that had no authority over them?[/QUOTE]

Why didn't Congress have the authority to call up the militia? That seems odd. Didn't the Southern states sign on to that document? If they did, then they agreed to surrender a measure of sovereignty to the federal government, and placed themselves under the the authority of Congress for certain limited and enumerated purposes. One of those puposes was to call up militia in the case of rebellion. Of course Congress had authority over the States within the parameters of the powers strictly demlimited in the Constitution, as agreed by all.

That's just called keeping one's word, IMO.

[QUOTE]Why were there no prosecutions for treason following the war, given the strength and moral authority of Lincoln's rhetoric?[/QUOTE]

Because it was a war between brothers - a war where both sides had strong arguments in their favor. Tragedy is worst when both sides are right, as America in 1860. Also, I think that Lincoln was a magnanimous soul who was much more concerned with healing the wounds inflicted by the war than settling old scores. Call me a sentimental sap, but I really believe that about him. Unfortunately, he went to the Ford Theater that fateful night, and a number of very bad men in the Republican party took over who weren't of such noble spirit. It would have been much better had he lived, IMHO. We all lost when he died. Perhaps especially the blacks, who lost an historic opportunity to gain their own land in Africa.

[QUOTE]The war may or may not have settled the question; but it did open the door for the Fourteenth Amendment. Just another improvement on the perfect union, right?[/QUOTE]

No argument there, the war was a ghastly tragedy that may yet prove fatal to our race on this continent.

By the way, see the vdare.com article today on the Texas elite's role in the immigration disaster. It notes the plans of the Southern elites to build their own empire on their own southern flank, just like the Yankee plutocrats.

Texas Dissident

2004-03-25 16:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]As to Lincoln, he was a great man who did what he needed to do to save his country from being torn asunder....I admire Lincoln greatly, including his suspension of habeus corpus, press freedoms, and other measures. You do what you have to do, my friends. All bets are off in times of war and insurrection...You do what you gotta do,... But in life you either choose to pay the price to win, or you choose to lose. Lincoln chose to pay the price to win, and as Vince Lombardi said, winning ain't everything, it's the only thing. Lincoln understood that, and that makes him a truly great man. [/QUOTE]

Walter,

Your argument here is that one does whatever it takes to win, therefore subsequent appeals to Constitutional legalities, who was right and who was wrong, etc. don't really amount to a hill of beans. Lincoln did what he had to do, conscripted foreigners to kill Southern Christian whites as weisbrot mentioned above, and eventually won. You're right, that's the bottom line. I completely agree, there's no sense in arguing about the legalities 'cause that's nether here nor there. Might rules, most assuredly.

My only point is that we definitely had a white Christian homeland -- the Confederate States of America -- examplified by the Southern Cross flag, the only Cross on any state flag here in the Western Hemisphere I believe.

Lincoln and his foreign conscripts killed it. End of story, 'cept I'd like to help see it built once again.

Walter Yannis

2004-03-25 19:30 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Walter,

Lincoln and his foreign conscripts killed it. End of story, 'cept I'd like to help see it built once again.[/QUOTE]

Lincoln defintely believed in the right to revolution, along with the Founders, I might add. If you can pull it off, then that's that.

I respectfully suggest that you're idealizing the Confederacy too much. I mean, were the Southern aristocrats morally superior to their Yankee counterparts? Didn't they have analogous imperial designs on their neighbors? Didn't they enlist the help of the poor to advance their interests in a most cynical way?

And what of the morality of waging war when there was little real chance of success? What of the moral blindness and arrogant hubris of the Southern aristocrats and many more besides in even conceiving the notion that they could defeat the might of the industrialized north? What insanity was that?

I think that Shelby Foote had it right that it was the time that we failed in our genius to settle our differences through negotiations.

I also gently take issue with the notion that the Confederacy was the only white, Christian and English-speaking nation. This simply isn't so - the entire north was all of those things to the same degree as the South, in fact more so since the blacks were concentrated in the South. Lincoln himself stood for exactly that - a mighty, industrialized world power encompassing all of our territories based on free white labor.

I guess I'm just as nostalgic for Lincoln as you are for the Confederacy.

I'll be on the road of a few days, talk to you soon.

Walter

edward gibbon

2004-03-25 21:18 | User Profile

Perhaps this may be presumptuous of me to bring this thread back somewhat to its original topic. Yet I feel that euphoria exists on this board when it is not justified. I wish that we had some historical perspective to think that just maybe, just maybe, that we wish for too much. I think the Chinese as a much older society than we are capable of determining what Americans want to hear and when in doubt tell them and tell them again. We are not, and never have been, as influential as we like to think. From my book: [QUOTE]One wondered if this martial achievement by the Japanese was the impetus for the judgment in 1900 by Admiral Mahan, the driving force for American imperial expansion through sea power, when he ruminated upon Asia and its effect on international politics. The good admiral excepted Japan from his general view of Asia and saw the Japanese as willing converts to the European family. Perhaps the process of Japan becoming teutonized would be recognized as a divine omen that Japan was to be the instrument of Providence promoting the spiritual and material regeneration of Asia. In biblical terms Mahan thought of Japan being the prepared soil for the mustard seed to take root and spring up into great trees. This tree when viewed would inspire such awe that the continental communities of Asia would seek the same remedy for their own soil.[/QUOTE]The Chinese used the term Ã¢â¬Årice bowl ChristiansÃ¢â¬Â for those Chinese who converted to obtain rice. I imagine much of the same is still occurring. I note that Admiral MahanÃ¢â¬â¢s grand hopes were dashed by the beastly behavior of his chosen people. The New York [I]Times[/I] had even greater delusions in 1904. [QUOTE]The New York [I]Times [/I] professed Japan would let all mankind in the peninsula, and Russia would keep all mankind out. "Whatever is gained by Japan is gained by mankind, and whatever is gained by Russia is lost to mankind." were the sentiments of the New York [I]Times[/I]. In an analogy so beloved by Americans the Japanese actions were explained as an attempt to set up a Far Eastern version of the Monroe Doctrine. The Japanese were instructed that for their own preservation they must make the independence of China and Korea a fundamental part of her policy.

These days most scholars and certainly most people forget the pride that progressive American institutions had when the Japanese demonstrated mastery of newly learned western methods.  The New York Times lauded the Japanese on their practice of enlightened principle and their judgment in taking the best and rejecting the worst in western civilization.   According to the New York [I]Times[/I] the Japanese had shown themselves intelligent, enterprising, ingenious, and industrious with rare executive and constructive talent.  Further, the editorial board complimented them on their bravery and their rich endowment of warlike qualities, but noted that the Japanese have not been quarrelsome or reckless.  The reader should be reminded that at the time the editorials were lauding the Japanese the Boy Scouts had yet to be founded, and one must wonder if Baden-Powell had been inspired by the knights of Bushido.

The Japanese like turn of the century vigilantes were busily fighting for the extension of trade and the suppression of selfish trade monopoly.  No western nation could match the selfless devotion of the Japanese to principle.  The New York [I]Times[/I] cautioned the Japanese if they abandoned this devotion, they may sink to the level of European nations and become grasping, bellicose and untrustworthy.  The level of the United States was not given by that paper.[/QUOTE]Once again.  The Chinese have no great love for us and soon what they do not know about our "secrets" will not be all that worthwhile.  When they feel the need to obtain a stable and bountiful oil supply, the world as Napoleon prophesied will tremble, most especially here in the United States.

Petr

2004-03-25 22:24 | User Profile

[COLOR=Red]"The Chinese used the term “rice bowl Christians” for those Chinese who converted to obtain rice. I imagine much of the same is still occurring."[/COLOR]

Well, you and that liberal scumbag Marlon Brando seem to share that opinion on the superficiality of Christianity's influence and the power of the Holy Spirit. Time will tell. Cynics like you would have never guessed that Christians would take over the Roman Empire either.

In no way these modern Chinese Christians get such crass benefits for their conversion - au contraire, physical harassment equalled only by the nastiest Muslim regimes.

You really seem to be stuck in the 19th century by talking about some "rice bowl Christians".

I also repeat my firm belief that Christian China will be much more agreeable to Caucasoid interests than belligerent, pagan China.

Petr

weisbrot

2004-03-30 05:40 | User Profile

Anyway, strictly as an academic exercise, let me turn the question around on you: if the Union wasn't permanent, why was Congress authorized to put down insurrections?

...but how do you explain Fort Sumter? Lincoln said upon taking office that he didn't want the fight, that he'd leave slavery in place where it already existed, and so forth. He didn't want it, and no sane man would. [/QUOTE]

Lincoln was informed that Fort Sumter was now a part of the Confederacy, and was also informed that any attempt to retake or resupply the garrison would be considered an act of war. Under Lincoln's orders, a supply ship tried to sneak into Sumter under cover of darkness, and flying a false flag. Sumter was Lincoln's Tonkin Gulf; it was a provocation to get the war that he surely wanted.

And what of the morality of waging war when there was little real chance of success? What of the moral blindness and arrogant hubris of the Southern aristocrats and many more besides in even conceiving the notion that they could defeat the might of the industrialized north? What insanity was that?

The South came within a very small margin of actually winning the war. Many historians have stated that with very minor differences in outcomes at crucial moments, Lincoln would have been forced to withdraw and settle- perhaps by the force of public opinion in the divided North. This is not to refight the war or to indulge in wishful thinking; it's a matter of fact, and to say that the South was indulging in "arrogant hubris" and moral blindness is to buy into the false history written by the New York publishing houses owned by the victors. Perhaps the Confederacy should have anticipated Lincoln's use of foreign conscripts, which resulted in massive troop buildups of men willing to employ the brutality against civilians that Lincoln demanded. But by no means could the Confederacy have anticipated Lincoln's use of total warfare against the civilian South evidenced by the late campaigns of Sherman and others. This was a new type of warfare; Lincoln's use of total destruction against "brothers" was true moral blindness, and expecting the nation to heal after such acts was surely arrogant hubris.

Also, I think that Lincoln was a magnanimous soul who was much more concerned with healing the wounds inflicted by the war than settling old scores. Call me a sentimental sap, but I really believe that about him. Unfortunately, he went to the Ford Theater that fateful night, and a number of very bad men in the Republican party took over who weren't of such noble spirit.

We'll never know how Lincoln would have attempted to heal those wounds, and I agree that his asassination was ill-advised at that point. But if such very bad, ignoble men took over- who were presumably more interested in settling scores than healing wounds (and Reconstruction shows that they were)- then I'll ask again why were there no prosecutions for treason? Jefferson Davis was held for years, then released, all the time adamantly demanding that he be put on trial for treason. His demands were in vain, because these very bad Republicans knew that it was almost certain Davis and the Confederacy would be found not guilty of treason- they knew that secession was legal and Constitutional.

[url]http://littlegeneva.com/mt/index.html[/url] When the Southern states seceded from the Union, there was no longer a sufficient quorum to convene Congress, and so it adjourned sine die (ceasing to exist, just as the government under the Articles of Confederation ceased to exist when that body adjourned). This is why "The Congress" to this day in Volume 1, Title 2 of the United States Code is marked with an asterisk. The footnote at the bottom of the page reads: "Exists By Resolution." In other words, Lincoln gave our modern Congress the ability to exist, and Congress is now a mere appendage of the presidency. Failure to achieve a quorum in Congress meant that the Union was lawfully dissolved. Executive despotism, and consequently the death of constitutional government, began from Lincoln's call, without approval of Congress, for a 75,000 man posse comitatus to invade and subjugate the South. He reasoned that he had this power by the Act of Congress of 1795, which allowed the president to call for a posse in times of insurrection when Congress was not in session. The North swallowed this lie (incited by bankers from Chicago to Boston who were eager to close Southern ports) without considering that the government had been dissolved through secession. Nor was this a domestic insurrection but now a foreign nation. A de facto legislative body was convened by Lincoln on July 4, 1861, according to his supposed "war power" as commander-in-chief. This maneuver was manifestly illegal, as it was the right of Congress alone to levy war.

Lincoln's "war power" evolved into Woodrow Wilson's Trading With the Enemy Act, enacted on October 6, 1917, as our ticket to enter WWI. The emergency powers of this Act were assumed by FDR less than a decade later in his attempt to reverse the Depression by controlling the economy. He shut down banks across the country (on his own) and convinced Congress to pass the Bank Holiday Act, which suddenly made the American people the "foreign" enemy, as it became illegal for anyone to own gold.

Now our money is non-redeemable paper, completely controlled by the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Warren G. Harding admitted in 1921: "The government has not a dollar's worth of stock" in the Federal Reserve System. "Instead," Greg Loren Durand writes, "the owners of the Federal Reserve were, and are, the heirs to the bondholders and financiers of Lincoln's war against the South, whose right to collect payment from the United States Government and its citizens 'shall not be questioned' under Section 4 of the alleged Fourteenth Amendment." The vast national debt on which we pay interest every year is a remnant of Lincoln's War! Thus we, the conquered, must continue to pay for the steel that ripped apart the bodies of our fathers. Before the War, Andrew Jackson paid off the small national debt. It may never be paid again, for there are too many Keynesian economists now who believe debt is a good thing. Even supply-siders like Jack Kemp say repeatedly that debt simply isn't important; we must "grow" the economy, and a rising tide will lift all boats. "We are all Keynesians now," Richard Nixon once said.

FDR then proceeded to seize agriculture, industry, stack the Supreme Court, pass Social Security, etc., and an executive dictatorship was born. Congress, being a loyal appendage, later made his actions lawful. Title 12 U.S.C. 95(b), on the books to this day, states: "The actions, regulations, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the [Trading With the Enemy] Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed." Now almost every executive order issued by the president begins with this phrase: "...under the authority vested in me as President of the United States by section 5(b) of the [Trading With the Enemy] Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a)..." I hope you can see how the dots are connected from Lincoln to the present day.

The 93rd Congress admitted in the 1973 Senate Report 93-549: "Since March, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared National Emergency... This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule this country without reference to normal Constitutional process. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens..." Greg Durand has correctly written: "The foul tree of despotism which was planted in American soil...by Lincoln, watered by the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction, and fertilized by [Franklin] Roosevelt, has at last come to full fruition - America is now a socialist police State, the people have been reduced to abject slavery, and the Constitution has become little more than a curiosity in the museum of historical relics."

"[A]llow [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you... A city used to [feigned] liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way... [T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people...should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs..." ~ Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

Lincoln's de facto government, incorporated on February 21, 1871, was placed "upon the same footing with that of any of the States or Territories" (Grant v. Cooke, 1871), with its own internal order and D.C. flag. It was then that the term "United States" changed from plural to singular. Citizenship is now national rather than according to state ("U.S. citizen" rather than "citizen of Virginia," for example). This is because the illegal 14th Amendment forced the states to accept blacks as citizens, and the 15th Amendment gave blacks the right to vote. This was a usurpation of the right of states to sovereignly determine their own laws. The camel's nose crept under the tent, and now he lives there.

Ruffin

2004-03-30 15:21 | User Profile

Walter, the Southern secession was not either an insurrection or a rebellion. It was a constitutionally authorized separation. Lincoln was the first American politician.

Had Southerners not themselves been the targets for conquest, more of them would've probably followed into lemminghood along with their estranged former countrymen. This necessarily took another generation, and the dominoes continue to fall today. The yanks are special, in that they're the only ones who gave up their nationhood to international mercantilism of their own free will.

Ruffin

2004-03-30 15:38 | User Profile

gibbon - Recitations from your book are as authoritative as are Elie Weisel's. His would be from his own experience as well.

edward gibbon

2004-04-01 20:29 | User Profile

From my book: [QUOTE]While he remarked on general excellences of the Negro, Mr. Percy (in [I][COLOR=Red]Lanterns on the Levee[/COLOR][/I]) lamented his inability to help the Negro because no Negro unreservedly trusts any white man; nor does he trust any Negro because his leaders have betrayed him. The southern Negro turned to country preachers who were immoral, uneducated and avaricious. (W.E.B. DuBois had claimed the religious activities of the poor whites were copied from the black church. What pained him was how debased much of the music was which purported to copy Negro melodies. Whites had caught the body, but not the "soul" of Jubilee songs. One must suspect he would have disclaimed influence on Jimmy Swaggert or Jim Bakker.) Even then the atmosphere of America misled and endangered the Negro. What bothered him especially was the sickening adulation paid to Negro athletes and entertainers. Another wicked intrusion into the cultural milieu was the white sentimentalist. The noblest of them, Mrs. Roosevelt, accomplished her insidious evil with the highest motives. [/QUOTE] Mr. Percy regarded the mortal sin of the Negro was his ability to be "born again". This discharged any obligations he may have had to his fellow man with one proclamation to his God. If I am not mistaken, much of the same is now taking hold among whites.

edward gibbon

2004-04-01 20:33 | User Profile

I have received privileged communication regarding [B]Ruffin[/B]. I have been informed that his blind, vile idiocy came about the very night his mother stopped wanking him. His father who had taken turns with his wife had given up some time before. Since then he has lashed out at all he recognizes as his superiors in intellectual, moral and cultural matters. He should be pitied, but his continuing behavior as a vicious ignoramous precludes this.

He functions as an internet commando who will yelp about his anger and his willingness to address his tormentors, but will not be found when rocks and fists would start to fly. He takes great comfort in his anonymity. Yet I have researched my past and now believe I know who the scoundrel is.

The creature known as [B]Ruffin[/B] is [COLOR=Red][B]Birdbrain Bryant[/B][/COLOR], the moron who collects pigeon droppings. Bryant is the tough-talking blowhard who maintained I did not prove Jews escaped the wars of America. Bryant was, and is, even in a lower class than [COLOR=Yellow]Yellow Polichinello[/COLOR], who pretended he knew something. Birdbrain just ranted and cried. Lurkers and members should now be aware of this lunaticÃ¢â¬â¢s ravings and shortcomings.

Ruffin

2004-04-02 01:42 | User Profile

gibbon - You are as cheap a detective as you are consumed by degenerate fantasy and a severe but understandable inferiority complex. No wonder that the more intelligent men you so resent soon realized that time spent with you was wasted. In short, you are a nut.

edward gibbon

2004-04-03 19:49 | User Profile

[B][COLOR=Red]Birdbrain[/COLOR] Ruffin [/B]

You should post your picture in full regalia with cloak and hood. To add substance to your pose you should have pigeon droppings on hood and face. For one such as yourself who fervently believes Japanese have honor this should not be a self-deception, but something you and your ancestry should be proud of. You really are jealous of those who know far more than you and are not ashamed of their learning. You should take to lecturing Cub Scout meetings and build your confidence in your lies by fooling these poor kids.

You are an idiot with malevolent tendencies. You should be on a watch list.

Walter Yannis

2004-04-05 06:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE][Ruffin]Walter, the Southern secession was not either an insurrection or a rebellion. It was a constitutionally authorized separation. Lincoln was the first American politician. [/QUOTE]

Please cite the Constitutional provision authorizing a State to secede. I read the Constitution cover to back many times, and I must have missed that part.

I did read that Congress has the right to put down insurrections. You and my good friend Weisbrot dissemble in calling the decision to defy Congress under threat of arms anything but "insurrection." Of course it was insurrection, and Congress had specific authority to put it down.

I look forward to your cite to the Constitutional provision allowing for secession.

[QUOTE]Had Southerners not themselves been the targets for conquest, more of them would've probably followed into lemminghood along with their estranged former countrymen. This necessarily took another generation, and the dominoes continue to fall today. The yanks are special, in that they're the only ones who gave up their nationhood to international mercantilism of their own free will.[/QUOTE]

While your criticism of the North is to the point, again I think you idealize the South altogether too much.

The Southern aristocrats wanted to create their own empire to the west and south. This included the Carribean islands, Central America, parts of Mexico. They wanted to reinstitute slavery in those lands. Thus, the "imperialist" charge applies to the South just as much as it does the North. In fact, it applies maybe even less so to the North: Lincoln was against the war of conquest with Mexico that lay at the root of CWI. That war was was fomented by imperialists in both sections, but by none more than Southern aristocrats who had their own dreams of empire.

Ditto to the "mercantilist" charge. The Southern aristocrats foolishly thought that their near corner on world cotton production made them indispensible to world trade. Again, it's true of the North, but you miss the point that the same things can be said about the Southern hotheads who drove the thing off the cliff.

As to Weisbrot's contention that the South nearly won and that the South's dreams were realistic enough to justify the spilling of American blood in prospect, I point out Shelby Foote's conclusion that the North fought the war with one hand tied behind its back, and that the North was always prepared to pull out the sledgehammer when the time came. I will defer to his very learned opinion on the matter, which (if memory serves) was that given its advantaged in productive capacity and manpower, there was no way the South could have won. Not ever. Clearly then, entertaining contrary notions was pure delusion. And a very destructive delusion at that.

The only hope the South had was a failure of Northern nerve, but even to imagine such a thing from the dourly determined Yankee constitutes the very stuff of hubris. Isn't that clear? I mean, whom did they think they were going up against, a bunch of girl scouts? Did they really imagine the North was just going to stand by while their country was rent in two? Such patent silliness. And think of all the nonsense spouted about how each Southerner was going to take out ten Yankees, as just one example of Southern hubris that could only cause a reasonable man to blush. One still hears such ridiculous posturing to this very day.

The Confederacy was motivated by the worst sort of naked imperialism among the Southern slave owning elites, and the War was fought by the Southern poor who were fed a lot of nonesense about their own superiority. The South fought an illegal (and therefore immoral) war in a very bad, imperialist cause while indulging delusional assessments concerning their own abilities and those of their Yankee enemies. The madness of that dream left over 600,000 Americans dead, the South in smoking ruins, and perhaps worst of all inflicted a wound on our own self confidence so terrible that we may never recover from it. What do you place in the balance against that? Why continue to celebrate such a misconceived calamity?

I hate to lay it out like that, but there it is. It does no good to engage in this sort of romanticizing a hopeless (and therefore bad) cause. Give it up, lads, and let the dead sleep in peace.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-04-05 11:03 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I have received privileged communication regarding Ruffin. I have been informed that his blind, vile idiocy came about the very night his mother stopped wanking him. His father who had taken turns with his wife had given up some time before. [/QUOTE]

That was uncalled for.

Let's keep it clean, fellas.

Walter

Petr

2004-04-05 11:06 | User Profile

Does anyone have the feeling that this thread has slipped from its original premise?

Petr

edward gibbon

2004-04-05 18:28 | User Profile

From Walter Yannis [QUOTE]Quote: [QUOTE]I have received privileged communication regarding Ruffin. I have been informed that his blind, vile idiocy came about the very night his mother stopped wanking him. His father who had taken turns with his wife had given up some time before.[/QUOTE] That was uncalled for.

Let's keep it clean, fellas.

Walter[/QUOTE]It is not that I dislike [B][COLOR=Red]Birdbrain[/COLOR] Ruffin[/B]. It is that I despise him. He is a tough-talker (and writer) who relishes his anonymity. I suspect he is one all for change, but will cower if it comes to physical danger. His girlish taunts affronted me. I have one deplorable characteristic though others may say I have many more. When attacked, I will fight back regardless of consequences.

Ruffin

2004-04-05 19:37 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Please cite the Constitutional provision authorizing a State to secede. I read the Constitution cover to back many times, and I must have missed that part.[/QUOTE] Amendment #10.

[QUOTE]I did read that Congress has the right to put down insurrections. You and my good friend Weisbrot dissemble in calling the decision to defy Congress under threat of arms anything but "insurrection." Of course it was insurrection, and Congress had specific authority to put it down.[/QUOTE] It was not an insurrection, in that there was no effort made to disempower or destroy the government of the United States. All legalities were observed by Southern legislatures, in deciding a question they were constitutionally authorized to decide.

[QUOTE]I look forward to your cite to the Constitutional provision allowing for secession.[/QUOTE] Again, Amendment #10.

[QUOTE]While your criticism of the North is to the point, again I think you idealize the South altogether too much.[/QUOTE] My South was healthier when it had control over its own affairs and hadn't been taught to hate itself. In fact, I think the entire world suffered less then than since the US liberation steamroller began.

[QUOTE]The Southern aristocrats wanted to create their own empire to the west and south. This included the Carribean islands, Central America, parts of Mexico. They wanted to reinstitute slavery in those lands. Thus, the "imperialist" charge applies to the South just as much as it does the North. In fact, it applies maybe even less so to the North: Lincoln was against the war of conquest with Mexico that lay at the root of CWI. That war was was fomented by imperialists in both sections, but by none more than Southern aristocrats who had their own dreams of empire.[/QUOTE] Coulda, woulda, mighta, but didn't happen.

[QUOTE]Ditto to the "mercantilist" charge. The Southern aristocrats foolishly thought that their near corner on world cotton production made them indispensible to world trade. Again, it's true of the North, but you miss the point that the same things can be said about the Southern hotheads who drove the thing off the cliff.[/QUOTE] Hotheads don't respect self-government. It isn't hotheaded to defend that right. The South didn't invade and deny self-government to the north, nor did they threaten to do so when some of the northern states considered secession themselves.

[QUOTE]As to Weisbrot's contention that the South nearly won and that the South's dreams were realistic enough to justify the spilling of American blood in prospect, I point out Shelby Foote's conclusion that the North fought the war with one hand tied behind its back, and that the North was always prepared to pull out the sledgehammer when the time came. I will defer to his very learned opinion on the matter, which (if memory serves) was that given its advantaged in productive capacity and manpower, there was no way the South could have won. Not ever. Clearly then, entertaining contrary notions was pure delusion. And a very destructive delusion at that.[/QUOTE] Southerners were under the mistaken belief that northerners would respect their desire to separate peacefully and form their own nation, as Americans had done 80 years before. Much eloquent literature had been penned by both northerners and Southerners about their right to do so.

[QUOTE]The only hope the South had was a failure of Northern nerve, but even to imagine such a thing from the dourly determined Yankee constitutes the very stuff of hubris. Isn't that clear? I mean, whom did they think they were going up against, a bunch of girl scouts? Did they really imagine the North was just going to stand by while their country was rent in two? Such patent silliness. And think of all the nonsense spouted about how each Southerner was going to take out ten Yankees, as just one example of Southern hubris that could only cause a reasonable man to blush. One still hears such ridiculous posturing to this very day.[/QUOTE] It wasn't their, meaning the north's, country. It was supposed to be governed by the people residing in the respective states. Yes, they undersestimated the Cain factor.

[QUOTE]The Confederacy was motivated by the worst sort of naked imperialism among the Southern slave owning elites, and the War was fought by the Southern poor who were fed a lot of nonesense about their own superiority. The South fought an illegal (and therefore immoral) war in a very bad, imperialist cause while indulging delusional assessments concerning their own abilities and those of their Yankee enemies. The madness of that dream left over 600,000 Americans dead, the South in smoking ruins, and perhaps worst of all inflicted a wound on our own self confidence so terrible that we may never recover from it. What do you place in the balance against that? Why continue to celebrate such a misconceived calamity?[/QUOTE] Such is your opinion of the South. Americans, ever since, have felt it necessary to demonize peoples before justifying their liberations.

[QUOTE]I hate to lay it out like that, but there it is. It does no good to engage in this sort of romanticizing a hopeless (and therefore bad) cause. Give it up, lads, and let the dead sleep in peace.[/QUOTE] Hey, you wanted to talk about it.

"To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another." ~ Alexander Hamilton

"If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"To coerce a State would be more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts." ~ James Madison

"(America) was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right to do so." ~ Alexis de Tocqueville

"If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other,...the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint." ~ John Quincy Adams

"It is safe to say that there was not a man in the country...who did not regard the new system as an experiment from which each and every state has a right to withdraw. " ~ Senator Henry Cabot Lodge

"If it [the Declaration of Independence] justifies the secession from the British empire of 3,000,000 of colonists in 1776, we do not see why it would not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861. If we are mistaken on this point, why does not some one attempt to show wherein why? " ~ New York Tribune, December 17, 1860.

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South." ~ London Times, 7 November 1861

"I do not know what the Union would be worth if saved by the sword." ~ Senator William H. Seward

"Should the Northern States continue willfully and deliberately to circumvent federal law, the South would no longer be bound to observe the constitutional] compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side." ~ Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts

Ruffin

2004-04-05 20:27 | User Profile

gibbon -

[SIZE=7][COLOR=Navy]GROW UP![/COLOR][/SIZE]

Ruffin

2004-04-05 23:24 | User Profile

Walter -

There's one other point I'd like to raise. Where in your constitution does it specifically bar a state's secession? Do you really think the document would've been ratified had it been understood that, once those several men signed it, no American state would be permitted to leave? Of course not. They never would've agreed to such a thing.

It's no coincidence that Jews have always felt more at home in the northeastern US than in the rural "backward" South or in the "flyover" midwest. The northeast is the birthplace of American mercantilism, and it quickly flourished among a people who were always ready to sell their descendants' future for a little immediate gain and the feel-goodism that progressives always aspire to as they tear down that which they think they're preserving and progressing.

Think about it. Which sounds more Jewish, waving goodbye to one's former countrymen who've asked you to respect their sovereignty as much as you would want them to respect yours, or to force them into a government against their will and kill a few million on both sides in order to "save" them?

And what have Americans been doing ever since but performing mercenary duty for their Jews? Within a generation of 1865 Jews were flooding the place, spying a mercenary nation whose few resistant hands were by then bound by its own "preservers".

If Southern leaders were as unprincipled as you'd like to believe, why didn't they simply accept northern domination? They could've made a pretty penny in bribes, the way they began doing after choosing that path a century later. But no, they chose to actually do what national leaders are supposed to do - they stood for the real preservation of their people, and not some robber barons' and Jews' financial portfolios.

Many Southerners may herald their righteous Christianity now, but the strand of religious conversion-or-death was, then, a northern thing. It is after all the flip side of mercantilism. Where one is found thriving, both are strong, and modern religion is suicidal egalitarianism - and it progresses so rapidly, according to its political agenda, that it doesn't even resemble itself from generation to generation. Thus we see Americans condemning the beliefs held to be sacred by their parents, over and over.

Previously I tried to concentrate on northerners. Here are some great ones by Jefferson, followed by a couple that are more in tune with the progressive age we live in.

"Whenever Northern and Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacrificed, and the former soothed. Monarchical Federalists, employing the government as a stepping-stone to monarchy, brought all this about by adopting constructions of the Constitution that they had promised would never occur in their earlier arguments supporting that document's acceptance." ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"The future inhabitants of {both} the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country." ~ Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813

"The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of [their] war [for independence, a nation begins] going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of [that] war will remain on [them] long, will be made heavier and heavier, till [their] rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." ~ Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVII, 1782

For comparison:

"This war must be pursued with a vim and vengeance until the rebellion is put down, if it exterminates from God's green earth every man, woman, and child south of Mason and Dixon's line." ~ William G. Brownlow

"The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domainÃ¢â¬Â¦. We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper." ~ Gen. W. T. Sherman

Which of these three fellows do you think had the best interest of Americans at heart (not the NY Stock Exchange, but American people)?

mwdallas

2004-04-06 14:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Please cite the Constitutional provision authorizing a State to secede. I read the Constitution cover to back many times, and I must have missed that part.[/QUOTE] Principles of contract law and partnership law govern the question.

What remedy or means of enforcement of its rights (short of military action) could a state have other than secession or nullification?

What provision in the Constitution would suggest that a State's secession is a breach of the agreement, i.e., a wrongful withdrawal?

Where in the Constitition or the common law (or current statutory law, for that matter) would you find support for a contention that specific performance is a remedy for wrongful withdrawal from a partnership?

Texas law, for instance,

[url]http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/BO/content/htm/bo.004.00.000152.00.htm[/url]

provides that a withdrawal is wrongful only if (1) "the withdrawal breaches an express provision of the partnership agreement", (2) "in the case of a partnership for a definite term or particular undertaking or for which the partnership agreement provides for winding up on a specified event..." the partner withdraws "before the expiration of the term, the completion of the undertaking, or the occurrence of the event", or (3) "the partner is expelled by judicial decree."

Even if a withdrawal is wrongful, the wrongfully withdrawing partner is liable [I]for damages[/I]; there is no provision for aremedy of specific performance, i.e., forcing a withdrawing partner into perpetual servitude to the partnership.

Louisiana law (arising out of a civil, rather than, common law tradition):

[url]http://www.findlaw.com/11stategov/la/civilcode3.html[/url]

Art. 2821. Partnership constituted for term; withdrawal

If a partnership has been constituted for a term, a partner may withdraw without the consent of his partners prior to the expiration of the term provided he has just cause arising out of the failure of another partner to perform an obligation.

Art. 2822. Partnership without term; withdrawal

If a partnership has been constituted without a term, a partner may withdraw from the partnership without the consent of his partners at any time, provided he gives reasonable notice in good faith at a time that is not unfavorable to the partnership.

And do not attempt to hang your hat on a contention that the Constitution was intended to accomplish a "specific undertaking" that had not yet been completed. This is contrary to the common-law understanding, as reflected in the comments to the Uniform Partnership Act:

[url]http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/upa97fa.htm[/url]

[I]It is sometimes difficult to determine whether a partnership is at will or is for a definite term or the completion of a particular undertaking. [B]Presumptively, every partnership is an at-will partnership. [/B] See, e.g., Stone v. Stone, 292 So. 2d 686 (La. 1974); Frey v. Hauke, 171 Neb. 852, 108 N.W.2d 228 (1961). [B]To constitute a partnership for a term or a particular undertaking, the partners must agree (i) that the partnership will continue for a definite term or until a particular undertaking is completed and (ii) that they will remain partners until the expiration of the term or the completion of the undertaking. [/B]

To find that the partnership is formed for a definite term or a particular undertaking, there must be clear evidence of an agreement among the partners that the partnership (i) has a minimum or maximum duration or (ii) terminates at the conclusion of a particular venture whose time is indefinite but certain to occur. See, e.g., Stainton v. Tarantino, 637 F. Supp. 1051 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (partnership to dissolve no later than December 30, 2020); Abel v. American Art Analog, Inc., 838 F.2d 691 (3d Cir. 1988) (partnership purpose to market an art book); 68th Street Apts., Inc. v. Lauricella, 362 A.2d 78 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1976) (partnership purpose to construct an apartment building). A partnership to conduct a business which may last indefinitely, however, is an at-will partnership, even though there may be an obligation of the partnership, such as a mortgage, which must be repaid by a certain date, absent a specific agreement that no partner can rightfully withdraw until the obligation is repaid. See, e.g., Page v. Page, 55 Cal. 2d. 192, 359 P.2d 41 (1961) (partnership purpose to operate a linen supply business); Frey v. Hauke, supra (partnership purpose to contract and operate a bowling alley); Girard Bank v. Haley, 460 Pa. 237, 332 A.2d 443 (1975) (partnership purpose to maintain and lease buildings).[/I]

On withdrawal:

[I]Section 602(a) continues the traditional UPA Section 31(2) rule that [U][B]every partner has the power to withdraw from the partnership at any time, which power can not be bargained away.[/B][/U] Section 103(b)(6) provides that the partnership agreement may not vary the power to dissociate as a partner under Section 602(a), except to require that the notice of withdrawal under Section 601(1) be in writing. The UPA was silent with respect to requiring a written notice of withdrawal.[/I]

If you wish to compare these statements with the common law contemporaneus with the ratification of the Constitution, you may review Blackstone's Commentaries here:

[url]http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/[/url]

Walter Yannis

2004-04-07 15:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE][mwdallas]Principles of contract law and partnership law govern the question. [/QUOTE]

I agree with that, except that "partnership law" is really just a subset of the law of contracts. The Founders were men of their word. They believed in the sanctity of contracts, and we should view the Constitution in contractual terms. I would caution, however, that the Constitution is much more than a mere business undertaking. This was a sacred COVENANT sealed in the blood of the martyrs of the Revolution. While the Constitution has very real contractual aspects to it, it also has some of the attributes of Holy Writ. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are to be viewed in this light.

Let's then begin with the rule that we look to the four corners of the document to be construed before turning to extrinsic sources to resolve ambiguities. The Confederacy claimed a right to secede that was not found in the document itself, but could be substantiated only by reference to extrinsic sources. But those sources should not be admitted when they CONTRADICT the plain meaning of text, which is the case here:

[QUOTE]Sec. 8 clause 1: The Congress shall have Power . .

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [B]suppress Insurrections [/B] and repel Invasions; [/QUOTE]

The Constitution gives the federal government express authority to put down insurrections. The Confederacy was an insurrection against the Union itself, and the federal government acted well within its Constitutional mandate to quell the rebellion.

[I dispose here of Ruffin's reference to the 10th Amendment as justification for secession, which states that all powers not delegated to the federal government were retained by the states. But this begs the question of whether by joining the union the states forfeited the right to secede. Clearly they did so forfeit the right to secede since the Constitution expressly authorizes the quelling of insurrections. Ruffin's argument that a state's taking up arms to secede does not fall within the definition of "insurrection" here seems weak at best; after all, taking up arms in a unilateral act of violence against the existing government is the very definition of insurrection.]

Note also that federal laws trump all state laws:

[QUOTE]Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or [B]laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. [/B] [/QUOTE]

It was the express will of Congress that the Union not be disolved, and that law was absolutely supreme over contrary state laws.

[Ruffin made a point about there not being a Congressional quorum, but this is clearly contradicted by the President's right to convene and adjourn Congress in extreme situations, thus there can be no legal question on this since Lincoln ordered it: [QUOTE]Article II Sec. 3: Section 3. [The President] . . . may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper . . . he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. [/QUOTE] ]

To repeat: with reference to the four corners of the Constitution, all the states had relinquished their authority to secede by EXPRESSLY giving over to the federal government the power to quell insurrections. There simply is no other reasonable reading of this provision, and all arguments to the contrary must rely on secondary, extrinsic sources that again should not be admitted since they are offerred not to supplement our understanding but rather to CONTRADICT the plain meaning of the text.

But perhaps I should have started by noting not what the text says, but rather what it DOES NOT say. Lincoln rightly asserted (in his debates with Douglas) that no country comes into being with the understanding that it may be terminated at will, and that clearly the Founders understood this overwhelming precedent that all governments conceive of themselves as lasting through the ages. There may have been some states that foresaw the right of its constituent parts to unilaterally secede, but this is clearly not the case of the United States of America. If the Founders had intended that the States could secede at will, then presumably the great men (including the genius draftsman Jefferson himself) who signed our great charter would have included an express provision on this point. Yet no such provision exists in the Constitution, even while it does contain a very express provision authorizing the federal goverment to put down rebellion. Once again, the secessionist argument is contradicted by the plain text of the Constitution itself, and can be maintained only by the admission of extrinsic evidence that would flatly contradict this plain meaning.

As Lincoln rightly pointed out, the Union was conceived as eternal from the very start. No state may leave, at least not unilaterally and probably without amending the Constitution.

[QUOTE]What remedy or means of enforcement of its rights (short of military action) could a state have other than secession or nullification? [/QUOTE]

Your question assumes that a state had such a right, but I deny that assertion as I think proved above. The entire dispute turns on this question. My position. and that of Liincoln, is that it had no such right.

[QUOTE]What provision in the Constitution would suggest that a State's secession is a breach of the agreement, i.e., a wrongful withdrawal? [/QUOTE]

See above. The Union was always understood to be as eternal as anything of this world can be, and there is express provision authorizing the putting down of rebellions.

[QUOTE]Where in the Constitition or the common law (or current statutory law, for that matter) would you find support for a contention that specific performance is a remedy for wrongful withdrawal from a partnership?[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting argument, I'll freely grant you that, but I think it fails because it really constitutes an erroneous analogy. The Union was never conceved as a common law partnership that existed soley for the convenience of the partners that could be abandoned at will. To use a business analogy, it was closer to a close corporation, with powers delegated irrevocably by the stockholders to an executive (President) subject to the will of a general stockholders meeting (Congress), with the stockholders having the right to quit the company by selling their shares with the limited permission of the stockhlders. But even that really doesn't capture the meaning of the Constitution. To repeat, we're not talking about a merely business arrangement here, but rather a sacred covenant that was sealed in the blood of the Revolution, and was (presumably) understood by all to be for all time. Your argument thus fails as it relies on this improper analogy.

A closer analogy would be to all other governments of the world - the Declaration talks about taking our place among the nations of the world. Indeed, the Constitution itself refers to the law of nations, thus arguably incorporating this understanding by reference:

[QUOTE]Article 1 Sec. 8: [Congress is authorized to] define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the [B]law of nations[/B]; [/QUOTE]

As I said above, by that (much closer) analogy to the customary law of nations, the nearly conclusive presumption would be that there is no right to secede unilaterally, and least absent some very express provision to the contrary which is utterly lacking in the Constitution.

Warmest regards,

Walter

Ruffin

2004-04-07 18:00 | User Profile

Walter - The South didn't take up arms until after the north had called up troops and declared its intention to invade. So there was no insurrection to be put down but that unconstitutionally organized by the US president. Read what President Buchanan stated as his reason for not doing this, that he lacked the constitutional authority.

Article VI: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This applied to states that were within the union.

Article II Sec. 3: Section 3. [The President] . . . may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper . . . he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Ditto.

But perhaps I should have started by noting not what the text says, but rather what it DOES NOT say. Lincoln rightly asserted (in his debates with Douglas) that no country comes into being with the understanding that it may be terminated at will,...

No effort was made to terminate the US.

If the Founders had intended that the States could secede at will, then presumably the great men (including the genius draftsman Jefferson himself) who signed our great charter would have included an express provision on this point.

They did. They referred to their theory as 'consent of the governed', and they expressly underlined it in the 10th Amendment. Their constitution was not a bill of authority, it was an explicit restriction on federal powers. Your theory that the federal government was entitled to do anything not specifically forbidden by the constitution is clearly against the expressed intention of the men who wrote it, as can be seen by the words they used in specifically forbidding it to do anything not expressly authorized.

Had an effort been made to take over state governments that had not elected to secede, then an insurrection would have been the case. Thus no insurrection, no rebellion. In fact, the only force that was used against state governments was that of Lincoln, in militarily preventing several state legislatures from addressing the matter.

As Lincoln rightly pointed out, the Union was conceived as eternal from the very start. No state may leave, at least not unilaterally and probably without amending the Constitution.

Nowhere does the constitution of the time declare that it is eternal. The Articles of Confederation otoh, that instrument that was so short lived and that was repealed by representatives of the several states, did declare itself eternal.

The Union was never conceved as a common law partnership that existed soley for the convenience of the partners that could be abandoned at will.

Did you not read the words of the men I quoted, some of them the authors of the constitution? They had just rid themselves of a tyranny that governed against their wishes. Why would they pen one with the same monarchical purpose, that their descendants wouldn't be permitted to leave as they had?

Walter, we obviously interpret the constitution differently, so let's also consider the intentions of its authors. I quoted some of them, and I haven't seen any from your perspective. But tell me, why do you think they would have placed such chains on their descendants? Why would men who were clearly dedicated to governing by consent have intended the states to have no say about their membership in the union?

Walter Yannis

2004-04-07 19:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Walter, we obviously interpret the constitution differently, so let's also consider the intentions of its authors. I quoted some of them, and I haven't seen any from your perspective. But tell me, why do you think they would have placed such chains on their descendants? Why would men who were clearly dedicated to governing by consent have intended the states to have no say about their membership in the union?[/QUOTE]

They did have a say, via the Senate. Each state, as you know, has the right to elect two senators. Thus the original 13 states exchanged a measure of sovereignty over their own territories in exchange for the expected benefits of the union. To revert to the business analogy, it's as if a bunch of small businesses got together and pooled their wholly-owned property in exchange for reduced voting rights in a larger organization, in the hopes of maximizing benefits. Similarly here, the first 13 states to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare etc. surrendered a measure of control over their own affairs in exchange for the benefits of Union. The compromise was that each would have equal represenation in the senate even as they had proportional represenation in the House. The only question that we seem to disagree on is whether that was assumed to be perpetual, and for the reasons stated above that sure seems to me to be clearly the case. Your very good point about the Articles of Confederation bolster that point, for it was in that document and not in the Constitution, and its exclusion tends strongly to show an intent to reverse the loose union of the Articles in favor of the "more perfect union" of the Constituion.

As Lincoln pointed out many times, all of the States that entered the Union after the Constitution's ratification were in a very real sense creatures of Congress. They came into the Union because the Union either purchased or conquered the territory and guarded the settlers, and then set the rules by which these new states could enter the Union at the consent of the Congress.

This was the hot issue of the day. Those Southern imperialists who wanted to extend slavery to the territories (and beyond) insisted that those states (that were mostly settled by Southerners) be allowed into the Union as slave states as a matter or popular sovereignty, but Lincoln correctly pointed out that this simply wasn't the case, because they were creatures of the Union and therefore Congress had the sole right to regulate slavery in the territories. He has a whole thing on this in the Lincoln/Douglas debates that I'm sure you've read. Those arguments fall before the great rhetorician's onslaughts, I'm afraid.

This was the issue that the war was fought over, at least most immediately. Lincoln understood that slavery was a bad, bad thing and that it had to end at some point. He wanted to send our African brothers to Liberia, as you know. I think that few would disagree that as an ultimate goal this was the proper approach, and I assume that you agree that slavery was a very negative thing.

Clearly, however, the simple minded abolitionist approach of just letting them go and granting them citizenship put forth by the radicals in the North was patently nuts, inasmuch as it would have worked an even greater injustice on blacks than a couple more decades of slavery would have. But as Lincoln said many times, the first step is to stop the spread of slavery beyond the places it already existed, and that meant excluding it from the territories. He was willing (First Address) to leave slavery untouched in those areas (both North and South, but especially South) where it existed, but that's not what the hotheads in the South would agree to. They insisted on spreading that most vile of all institutions to the lands conquered from Mexico. And when they were clearly out voted by the North that elected a man as forthright in his views as Lincoln, they seceded, which itself clearly constitutes an act of insurrection.

As I wrote above, this was against the express meaning of the Constitution, and to my mind constituted a terrible breach of a most sacred promise of our forefathers to abide by the decisions of the federal government, surrendering a measure of state sovereignty to Congress, even recognizing the absolute supremacy of federal law over state law, in exchange for a more limited say in a much larger and greater thing. This was a breach of sacred covenant on their part, and frankly it pains me to think of it. I don't consider them traitors, though, because I really believe they thought they were right, and because as I said they had much right on their side.

As Lincoln said, we all knew that at bottom the institution of slavery was the root of that terrible conflict. As Shelby Foote put it, this was our greatest failure or our usual genius at working things out.

I guess my views on this are clear enough. I'm basically a Lincolnite. I promised to say no more about this above, so I'll shut up and give you and mwdallas the last word.

Walter

Ruffin

2004-04-07 21:05 | User Profile

...the first 13 states to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare etc. surrendered a measure of control over their own affairs in exchange for the benefits of Union.

There is a big difference between assigning a few authorities to the general government, while one is a participant in that government, and binding states and generations to come, in perpetuity, to a union. It is that phrase, "in perpetuity", that can be found in the Articles and NOT in the succeeding constitution. It was intentionally omitted by men who precisely demonstrated by their actions in scrapping the "perpetual" one that "in perpetuity" was not what they desired or intended.

The rest of your arguments have nothing to do with constitutional authority and are merely anti-self-government and anti-Southern ad hominem, so I won't get into them now. They are easily refutable and will probably be answered by others. If not, I will come back to them later.

The one thing I haven't seen from you is statements of intention by the authors of the constitution that support your argument. Lincoln was not one of them btw.

edward gibbon

2004-04-08 21:50 | User Profile

[B][COLOR=Red]Birdbrain[/COLOR] Ruffin[/B] You wrote [QUOTE]gibbon - [SIZE=3]GROW UP[/SIZE][/QUOTE] I have matured while you have not. You have an imagination of a 12 year old. You imagine the Japanese to be honorable while Americans are not. From my book:[QUOTE]General George Marshall in an internal memorandum agonized over the fate of the Allied prisoners and wanted to warn the Japanese, not only as a nation, but as a race, that their fate would depend on their ability "to progress beyond their original barbaric instincts". When the Japanese did torture and execute captured Allied airmen, Representative Sikes of Florida spoke of the cold horror gripping American hearts. Mr. Sikes wanted to defeat the "criminal Jap nation" by bringing them to their knees. Then he wanted to throw them out of the family of nations.

In May and June of 1945 after the surrender of the Germans eight captured B-29 crewmen were used in vivisection experiments in Japan by Professor Ishiyama, director of external medicine at Kyushu Imperial University. In one experiment Ishiyama extracted a prisoner's lungs and placed them in a surgical pan. Then he made an incision in the lung artery allowing blood to flow into the thorax killing the victim. In another Ishiyama removed ribs from a prisoner and stopped blood flow by holding a large artery by the heart so the resulting death could be timed. In a third incisions were made into the skull of a prisoner, and a knife was inserted to cause death. These ghastly operations were hardly unique and were repeated many, many times over on Chinese.[/QUOTE] Comparing Japanese to Germans:[QUOTE]A comparison between the German and Japanese treatment of Allied prisoners showed some marked differences. Of 235,473 United States and United Kingdom soldiers captured by Germany and Italy only 9,348, some 4 percent, died in captivity. Among the 132,134 Anglo-American prisoners of war held by the Japanese some 35,756 did not survive. This death rate was 27 percent. For the 25,697 men of the American Army captured in May 1942 some 10,957, or over 40 percent, died. After the war had ended, and the Americans had started to occupy Japan, an American who had been a prisoner of the Japanese complained Americans were too soft in their occupation policy, and the Japanese deserved to be occupied by the Chinese and the Russians.[/QUOTE] I noted you turned 48 years. I hope in the next 48 you mature and become wiser. Your countrymen and your parents cannot be blamed for everything.

weisbrot

2004-04-19 04:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] As I wrote above, this was against the express meaning of the Constitution, and to my mind constituted a terrible breach of a most sacred promise of our forefathers to abide by the decisions of the federal government, surrendering a measure of state sovereignty to Congress, even recognizing the absolute supremacy of federal law over state law, in exchange for a more limited say in a much larger and greater thing. This was a breach of sacred covenant on their part, and frankly it pains me to think of it. I don't consider them traitors, though, because I really believe they thought they were right, and because as I said they had much right on their side....

I guess my views on this are clear enough. I'm basically a Lincolnite. [/QUOTE]

Glad to hear it, Walter.

Quotes from another Lincolnite, and Supporter of the Constitution, below:

[url]http://www.sonshi.com/sherman13.html[/url] and [url]http://littlegeneva.com/mt/index.html[/url]

"The United States has the right, and [the] power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain... I can make the march, and make Georgia howl... We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper... Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources... The young bloods of the South; sons of planters, lawyers about towns, good billiard players and sportsmen, men who never did any work and never will. War suits them. They are splendid riders, first rate shots and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or employed by us before we can hope for peace... The government of the U.S. has any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war - to take their lives, their homes, their land, their everything... [To] the persistent secessionist, why, death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better." ~ Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman

Walter Yannis

2004-04-19 07:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]Glad to hear it, Walter.

Quotes from another Lincolnite, and Supporter of the Constitution, below:

[url]http://www.sonshi.com/sherman13.html[/url] and [url]http://littlegeneva.com/mt/index.html[/url]

Exactly.

Lincolnism is in many respects a later form of Cromwellism. The Battle Hymn of the Republic (one of my favourites) is a ferociously Cromwellian thing.

I admire both Cromwell and Lincoln greatly (although I must admit that Cromwell would have had a Papist like me drawn and quarterd. As Monty Python might have put it, "he was a cruel man, but just!").

Both Lincoln and Cromwell are rightly considered great because they had the moral fiber to do the bloody and awful things that needed doing for their cause. And because they won. Amen to that.

And hail victory.

Here is a very interesting [URL=http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13789-print.shtml]link[/URL] found on one of the pages you link above about the English-Scots split.

Cromwell would have loved General Sherman. I do not doubt that they're spending much time together in Purgatory even as we speak. Here's a [URL=http://www.clements.umich.edu/Photogal/Bib/Sherman.html]link[/URL] to a picture of the great General Sherman for your viewing pleasure.

Regards

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-19 16:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Exactly.

Lincolnism is in many respects a later form of Cromwellism. The Battle Hymn of the Republic (one of my favourites) is a ferociously Cromwellian thing.

Both Lincoln and Cromwell are rightly considered great because they had the moral fiber to do the bloody and awful things that needed doing for their cause. And because they won. Amen to that.

And hail victory.

Here is a very interesting [URL=http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/13789-print.shtml]link[/URL] found on one of the pages you link above about the English-Scots split.

Regards

Walter[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link, Walter. I'll try to check it someday.

As for your mention of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"...well. I'm sure it's no more of a provocation than your linking to images of the good General. I'll admit to my surprise at your admiration of Ms. Howe's prose, though, good Papist that you are. Were Lincoln's troops singing that tune as they grape-trampled New York City?

[url]http://www.westminster-pc.org/magazine/1996-06-22.html[/url] A hymn of hate

Fourth of July staple "Battle Hymn" has nothing to do with the God of the Bible

By William H. Smith

My friend came from old Virginia stock, spoke with the soft accents of Dixie, and should have known better. But destined for a military career and a lover of all things martial, he requested "That Hymn" during a pre-service hymn sing. The Yankee minister, however, knew better and refused to accept the request.

It was a hymn whose chorus every red-blooded American can sing. A hymn that was guaranteed to bring the crowd to its feet as the conclusion of the Pensacola Fighting Tigers High School Band's patriotic half-time show in the 1960s. A hymn whose rousing version was a standard in the repertory of the Belhaven College (Jackson, Miss.) Concert Choir during its glory days. What was it? "The Battle Hymn of the Republic." Why did the New Jersey minister refuse 40 years ago to let us Southern boys sing the hymn whose secular version ("Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Teacher hit me with a ruler!") we sang almost every day? It was not sensitivity to Southern sensibilities.

Perhaps it was because he knew something about the author, Julia Ward Howe. She was a classic leftist. Born into a wealthy New York family, she settled with her philanthropist husband in Boston. Active in the Unitarian Church, she preached in congregations throughout New England and joined organizations of the 19th-century left such as the Woman's International Peace Association. And, as her hymn reveals, she had that ability to hate that liberals quickly condemn in conservatives but righteously indulge in themselves.

More importantly, our minister understood the words we so thoughtlessly sang. Before you sing "The Battle Hymn" this July 4, perhaps you will want to think about what Mrs. Howe would have you sing.

Mrs. Howe's Christ is not the Christ of the Bible. If, "In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,/With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me," it was not "the glory of the One and Only who came from the Father," of "God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side," and who "became flesh" (John 1:14, 18) that Mrs. Howe saw. It was only the glory of human goodness. If "he died to make men holy" it was to make them holy by the power of sacrificial example that would motivate them to "die to make men free." It was not to make them holy by the efficacy of an atoning sacrifice which frees from sin's guilt and power.

Mrs. Howe's eschatology is not the eschatology of the Bible. If she could not believe in judgment in the hereafter, she surely believed in it in the here and now. Her eyes had "seen the glory of the coming of the Lord" not at the end of the age, but in the 1860s. "He hath loosed the fateful lightning of his terrible swift sword" in the form of the Union army marching against the South, God through them "trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored." One greater than Uncle Sam wants you in the righteous army which will execute judgment on the wicked whose cup of wrath is full:

"He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;/ He is sifting out the hearts of men before his judgment seat;/O be swift, my soul, to answer him! Be jubilant my feet!/Our God is marching on."

Mrs. Howe was nothing less than an early and ardent proponent of liberation theology. Sin is social. Salvation is freedom from structures of oppression. Redemption is by warfare. Judgment is now. Consider this little-used verse of her hymn:

"I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished tows of steel;/ 'As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;/Let the Hero, born to woman, crush the serpent with his heel,/Since God is marching on.'"

If she believed in moderation and toleration in religion, she gave little place to them in politics. If reason must lead to the discovery of religious truth, coercion must lead to social righteousness. She had no gospel of peace-that this day is a day of mercy in which we can be saved from the wrath to come by a God who, in love, provided the propitiation his justice demands and now pleads with sinners to be reconciled.

Mrs. Howe's hymn is a liberal hymn of hate stirred by the passions of war and based on a "God is on our side" mentality. Today, some whose patriotic zeal is high and theological discernment low might be tempted to sing it. Worse, some on the religious right may march into the culture wars singing it.

weisbrot

2004-04-19 16:36 | User Profile

[url]http://www.texasls.org/reading_room/history/battle_hymn_refuted.shtml[/url]

The Battle Hymn Refuted
by David O. Jones

May 4, 2002

As Memorial Day and Independence Day celebrations near, prepare yourself to hear the most offensive song ever written. No, not some rap drone about violence or perverted sex, rather that pseudo-Christian anthem known as the Ã¢â¬ÅBattle Hymn of the Republic.Ã¢â¬Â

        The song occupies a prominent position not only within the program of nearly every nationalistic celebration, but also as part of many Christian services. Admittedly, the anthem sounds good, but it is far from being a Ã¢â¬Åhymn.Ã¢â¬Â Many Christians understand its stirring words to provide an image of a victorious Church, but the connotations of a spiritual patriotism which have endeared it to many, result from a mistaken and cursory reading of the song.

By definition, a hymn is a song which incorporates theological truth into its text. Wonderful examples of Christian hymns are Ã¢â¬ÅA Mighty Fortress Is Our God,Ã¢â¬Â Ã¢â¬ÅGreat Is Thy FaithfulnessÃ¢â¬Â and Ã¢â¬ÅHow Firm a Foundation.Ã¢â¬Â But despite its authorÃ¢â¬â¢s use of biblical phrasing, the Ã¢â¬ÅBattle Hymn of the RepublicÃ¢â¬Â is not about Christ Ã¢â¬ÅmarchingÃ¢â¬Â against sin and the Church being Ã¢â¬ÅvictoriousÃ¢â¬Â over evil. The theological truths which it expresses are anti-Christian and anti-biblical, thus it should never be sung by a Christian congregation.

        The Ã¢â¬ÅBattle Hymn of the RepublicÃ¢â¬Â was written in the fall of 1861. While in Washington, D.C. with her husband, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe watched troops marching off to war singing Ã¢â¬ÅJohn BrownÃ¢â¬â¢s Body.Ã¢â¬Â  She determined to write a more inspiring war song to what was a good melody. First published in the Atlantic Monthly, she received five dollars for her literary effort.

        Born into a prominent New York City family, Julia Ward was raised in a conservative, Christian home. As a young woman she rebelled against her parentsÃ¢â¬â¢ strong Calvinism and ultimately married the Boston reformer, Dr. Samuel G. Howe. She adopted the tenants of Transcendentalism, then Unitarianism, and it was in that light that the Ã¢â¬ÅBattle HymnÃ¢â¬Â was written.

The Transcendentalists became the core of the radical abolitionist movement. Dr. Howe, as well as their Boston pastor, the Reverend Theodore Parker were two members of the Ã¢â¬ÅSecret SixÃ¢â¬Â who financed and armed the anti-slavery terrorist John Brown. After his murderous rampage in Kansas and at HarperÃ¢â¬â¢s Ferry, Mrs. Howe lamented, Ã¢â¬ÅJohn BrownÃ¢â¬â¢s death will be holy and glorious. John Brown will glorify the gallows like Jesus glorified the cross.Ã¢â¬Â

        The Ã¢â¬ÅBattle Hymn of the RepublicÃ¢â¬Â can only be understood within the framework of the Transcendentalist-Unitarian creed. The first verse reads:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;

He has loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword.

His truth is marching on.

Mrs. Howe applied the apocalyptic judgment of the Revelation (14:17-20 & 19:15) to the Confederate nation. She pictured the Union army not only as that instrument which would cause Southern blood to flow out upon the earth, but also the Union army as the very expression of His Word (sword) itself. The Transcendentalist-Unitarians believed that the evil in man could be rooted out by governmental action. The South was evil and was thus deserving of judgment of the most extreme natureÃ¢â¬âits own Armageddon.

        The second verse follows the same theme by presenting the Union army as the abode of their vengeful God.

I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps;

They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;

I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps.

His day is marching on.

        The third verse is so contrary of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that many hymnals leave it out altogether.

I have read the fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel.

As ye deal with My contempters, so with you My grace shall deal;

Let the hero born of woman crush the serpent with his heel.

Since God is marching on.

Mrs. Howe proclaimed a gospel of judgment pictured by rows of affixed bayonets. Taking GodÃ¢â¬â¢s promise of deliverance from Genesis 3:15, she applied it not to Christ, but to the Union soldier who would receive GodÃ¢â¬â¢s grace by killing Southerners. This was certainly a different gospel; the kind of which the Apostle Paul said, Ã¢â¬ÅBut even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.Ã¢â¬Â (Galatians 1:8)

        Verse four returns to the prose of the Apocalypse with trumpet and judgment seat imagery:

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never sound retreat;

He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat.

O be swift, my soul, to answer Him! Be jubilant, my feet!

Our God is marching on.

The problem again is that civil warfare was the instrument being promoted for determining the hearts of men. A manÃ¢â¬â¢s positive response to the call for enlistment in the Union army was the action which would reveal their standing before God.

        The fifth and final verse gives the ultimate expression of the warped and anti-biblical theology which possessed the radical abolitionists.

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,

While God is marching on.

To Julia Ward Howe the work of Christ was incomplete. It was up to men through civil government to bring about a utopian society. She was quoted in her biography, Ã¢â¬ÅNot until the Civil War did I officially join the Unitarian church and accept the fact the Christ was merely a great teacher with no higher claim to preeminence in wisdom, goodness, and power than any other man.Ã¢â¬Â (emphasis mine)

        The Ã¢â¬ÅBattle HymnÃ¢â¬Â theme has nothing to do with Christianity or God. It is a political-patriotic song about the destruction of the South, written in religious terminology. It is a clever product. Howe deliberately created the idea that the North was doing GodÃ¢â¬â¢s work. It paints a picture of a vengeful God destroying His enemiesÃ¢â¬âthe South, and elevating the NorthÃ¢â¬â¢s cause to that of a Ã¢â¬Åholy war.Ã¢â¬Â In doing so, Howe portrayed the South and its people as evil and the enemy of God. Outrageous, but it worked.

        As a Unitarian, Julia Ward Howe believed the Unitarian doctrine that man is characteristically good and he can redeem himself by his own merits without any help from a saviour. She rejected basic biblical truths such as a literal hellÃ¢â¬âÃ¢â¬ÅI threw away, once and forever, the thought of the terrible hell which appears to me impossible.Ã¢â��Â

Mrs. Howe also refuted the exclusive claim of Jesus, Ã¢â¬ÅI am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.Ã¢â¬Â (John 14:6) by saying, Ã¢â¬ÅHaving rejected the exclusive doctrine that made Christianity and special forms of it the only way of spiritual redemption, I now accept the belief that not only Christians but all human beings, no matter what their religion, are capable of redemption. Christianity was but one of GodÃ¢â¬â¢s plans for bringing all of humanity to a state of ultimate perfection.

Our challenge is to bring a proper understanding of the nature of this battle anthem to the leadership of the Christian church. No Christian church would intentionally sing a song of praise to SatanÃ¢â¬â¢s doctrines, nor would any pastor or elder lead their flock into rebellion against true biblical doctrine. Yet by ignorance, is has been done on a regular basis in the American church. The Ã¢â¬ÅBattle Hymn of the RepublicÃ¢â¬Â is apostasy. It promotes hatred and vengeful destruction. It has no place in a worship service.

Walter Yannis

2004-04-19 17:23 | User Profile

That's all very interesting, but it's a purely intellectual exercise.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic was and is much more than some exegetical exercise. It was the battle cry of a great, glorious and (most importantly) VICTORIOUS American army, and it hasn't been topped since. The stirring tune combines perfectly with the best of the Christian martial tradition. It's a Crusader song, really. It's a song for Christian soldiers called in the Mercy of God to slaughter His enemies, I can see it used easily to rally the troops against the Muslims. The Spanish Inquisition would have loved it, I'm sure.

It will certainly have its place in any future American Christain Nationalist movement.

It was a regular in my post-Vatican II Catholic Church in Wisconsin, and I assure you that nobody thought of its Unitarian theology. I see no problem with it.

Regards,

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-19 17:39 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That's all very interesting, but it's a purely intellectual exercise.

It will certainly have its place in any future American Christain Nationalist movement.

It was a regular in my post-Vatican II Catholic Church in Wisconsin, and I assure you that nobody thought of its Unitarian theology. I see no problem with it.

Regards,

Walter[/QUOTE]

Here's money your post-Vatican II Catholic Church in Wisconsin did a real zippy version of Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" with no problem...

Quantrill

2004-04-19 18:42 | User Profile

Walter, Please don't take this as an affront, because I certainly respect your opinion and consider you very knowledgable about many things. However, I must admit to being quite surprised at your admiration of Lincoln. Lincoln attacked a nation that had done him no wrong, flouted every convention of civilized warfare, and crushed the agrarian, Christian South as the leader of the heretical, Puritanistic, materialist North. In so doing, he destroyed the voluntary union of the states and created the unitary, secular, aggressive American Empire that we suffer under today. It is also instructive to look at how the South and Lincoln have been viewed by others. Pope Pius IX very much supported the cause of the Confederacy, and he sent Jefferson Davis a gift of a crown of thorns made with his own hands when Davis was held at Fort Monroe. During the Spanish Civil War, the American Communists organized themselves into the Abraham Lincoln Brigade and the John Brown Battery, so it is clear what ideology they attributed to those men. You also seem extremely impressed by the simple fact that Lincoln and Sherman won. Well, yes, their overwhelming advantage in population and resources, coupled with their total willingness to ravage the civilian population of the South did achieve victory. However, the view of justification by victory, or "might makes right", is a Nietzschean or pagan view, not a Christian one, and certainly not a Catholic one. How do you square your views on Lincoln with your conservatism, traditionalism, and especially, Catholicism?

Quantrill

Walter Yannis

2004-04-19 18:54 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]Here's money your post-Vatican II Catholic Church in Wisconsin did a real zippy version of Irving Berlin's "White Christmas" with no problem...[/QUOTE]

Actually, it was more of a "kumbaya" parish.

Here's an [URL=http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar03/127634.asp?format=print]article [/URL] on one of our local child molesting priests.

Not much to write home about, Im afraid.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-04-19 19:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]Walter, Please don't take this as an affront, You also seem extremely impressed by the simple fact that Lincoln and Sherman won. Well, yes, their overwhelming advantage in population and resources, coupled with their total willingness to ravage the civilian population of the South did achieve victory. However, the view of justification by victory, or "might makes right", is a Nietzschean or pagan view, not a Christian one, and certainly not a Catholic one. How do you square your views on Lincoln with your conservatism, traditionalism, and especially, Catholicism?

Quantrill[/QUOTE]

No offense taken.

Please see above where we discussed these things at length.

Basically, my position is that the United States is a singularity, and not a grab bag of pluralities, and that it was so from the beginning.

Lincoln had not only the right but the Constitutional duty to defend the integrity of the Union and to supress insurrection by all means necessary. This of course includes the right to convene Congress, raise militias, put down uprisings, as well as to suspend habeus corpus while the danger is present. Lincoln did those things, and he preserved the Union. He won, which is why he is remembered so fondly by me and with such vitriol by those who do not place the Union first in their hearts.

And Grant and Sherman were his great generals - to my mind among the great military leaders of history.

Your take on Christianity is something I've long since rejected. I claim the Christian religion of Martel, Sobieski and El Cid as my lodestar, and I reject the namby-pamby leisure suit Christianity of my childhood. I'm a traditional Catholic, which means I really have no problem with waging war on enemies in a just cause. As Thomas Aquinas teaches us, to fight in a just war is the height of Christian charity.

And it was a just war, for all the reasons mentioned above. Aquinas lists the criteria of a just war, and Lincoln met them all. It was declared by a legitimate authority, it was waged with due regard for legalities, the reasons were weighty, it had every chance of success when viewed prospectively (this goes to the "right makes right" issue, and it's also one of the points where the CSA's case for just war clearly failed), and only that force necessary was used (at least when viewed broadly). Fighting in the GAR as did so many of my ancestors was an act of Christian charity, just as fighting in the Crusades was.

I'm rightly proud of them. By the way, some of them went on to conquer the West from the Indians. One - the one who survived Libby Prison by eating rats - became a bigshot lawyer in Wisconsin. That's my heritage.

Lincoln's blessed memory will always live in the hearts of true Americans.

IMHO!

Regards,

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-19 19:32 | User Profile

Walter, you've revealed quite a bit about yourself in the three weeks since you vowed to say no more.

Endorsing apostasy is one thing, implying Calvin, Luther and Knox wore leisure suits is quite another. Cease and desist, Papist.

Viewed from the far side of Reconstruction, it's hard to see how the aggression of the North can be seen as just. It was naked imperialism in the service of Lincoln's mercantilist masters. And Sherman's treatment of his fellow Christians in Georgia and other states was hardly the heighth of charity, no matter how one attempts to wrap up their bill of goods in god-talk.

Now, at what point did your lawyer ancestor tumble to the fact that he was indulging in cannibalism?

Quantrill

2004-04-19 20:16 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Basically, my position is that the United States is a singularity, and not a grab bag of pluralities, and that it was so from the beginning.[/QUOTE] This is simply not the case. The culture of the North and South have been different from the start. Toqueville wrote that those in the North had more in common with Canadians then with those in the South. They have always been separate politically, as well. It is not a accident that they are called "states" and not provinces or regions. They were originally separate political entities, and no state ever renounced or forfeited that status. In fact, New York and Virginia, among other states specifically reserved the right to secession when they ratified the Constitution.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Lincoln had not only the right but the Constitutional duty to defend the integrity of the Union and to supress insurrection by all means necessary.[/QUOTE] There was no danger to the Union. It would have continued to exist as a voluntary compact among the rest of the states, including Virginia and Tennesse, since they only seceded after Lincoln made clear his intentions to attack the South. There was no insurrection. The Southern states were merely withdrawing from a union into which they had voluntarily entered. If Great Britain were to withdraw from the EU, would that constitute an insurrection?

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis] Your take on Christianity is something I've long since rejected. I claim the Christian religion of Martel, Sobieski and El Cid as my lodestar, and I reject the namby-pamby leisure suit Christianity of my childhood. I'm a traditional Catholic, which means I really have no problem with waging war on enemies in a just cause. As Thomas Aquinas teaches us, to fight in a just war is the height of Christian charity.[/QUOTE] You have misunderstood my argument. I have no problem with martial Christianity, and I view the Crusades as an achievement of Christendom, not something which needs to be apologized for. However, I think your patriotism for the America you love has blinded you in this instance.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]And it was a just war, for all the reasons mentioned above. Aquinas lists the criteria of a just war, and Lincoln met them all.[/QUOTE] Lincoln most certainly did not meet all the criteria for a just war.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It was declared by a legitimate authority,[/QUOTE] That is open for debate. Lincoln was a sectional candidate who represented the interests of one section of the country. He won without a single Southern electoral vote. The South didn't consider him legitimate.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]...it was waged with due regard for legalities,[/QUOTE] This is not the case. Lincoln called out troops and invaded the South without Constitutional authority. The legislature only approved the actions later, after Lincoln was a de facto dictator, when they were presented as a *fait accompli. * [QUOTE=Walter Yannis]...the reasons were weighty, it had every chance of success when viewed prospectively (this goes to the "right makes right" issue, and it's also one of the points where the CSA's case for just war clearly failed), [/QUOTE] Two points here. First, a just war requires a good chance of success; it does not therefore follow that a war with a good chance of success is just. Second, the CSA did have a good chance of success. Considering that Lincoln expected the war to be over in a matter of months, and that the South lasted for three years seems to indicate that it was a pretty near thing. Also, Lee surrendered because he thought it was in the best interests of the entire country. If the Confederates had gone to guerrilla warfare, they could have made the South ungovernable indefinitely.

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]and only that force necessary was used (at least when viewed broadly).[/QUOTE] Either you are not sufficiently acquainted with Sherman's methods, or else you are viewing necessary force very broadly, indeed.

There are some other criteria for a just war that I thought I would mention. These are taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[QUOTE]...the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;[/QUOTE] As I said before, the United States would have continued to exist after the southern states left. The South was also not an "aggressor", at all. They merely wanted to be left alone.

[QUOTE]...all other means of putting an end to [the aggression] must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;[/QUOTE] Lincoln refused to even meet with peace envoys from the CSA, so I don't think he met this criterion.

[QUOTE]The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties (CCC 2312). Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. (CCC 2314).[/QUOTE] I don't think the actions of Sherman and Butler (done with Lincoln's knowledge and blessing) acquit themselves well under this standard.

You have every right to be proud of your ancestors, and I am not implying otherwise. My position is merely that Lincoln was an evil bastard, and that he did more to destroy the America of the Founding Fathers than any other man that has ever lived.

Respectfully, Quantrill

Quantrill

2004-04-19 22:06 | User Profile

One more thing -- if the War Between the States was a just war, as defined by Catholic Just War Doctrine, then why was the pope at the time, Pope Pius IX, one of the South's most vocal defenders (as was Lord Acton, another Catholic)?

Walter Yannis

2004-04-20 06:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE][weisbrot]Walter, you've revealed quite a bit about yourself in the three weeks since you vowed to say no more. Endorsing apostasy is one thing, implying Calvin, Luther and Knox wore leisure suits is quite another. Cease and desist, Papist.[/QUOTE]

I agree that even the implication that the stalwart Protestants you name wore leisure suits would be unforgiveable calumny, but I assure you I implied no such thing. No, the leisure suit mentality of my own misspent youth was purely our own Catlick doing. Perish the thought that a great heresiarch like Calvin would indulge the blow-dried look. This would be blasphemy.

[QUOTE]Viewed from the far side of Reconstruction, it's hard to see how the aggression of the North can be seen as just. It was naked imperialism in the service of Lincoln's mercantilist masters. And Sherman's treatment of his fellow Christians in Georgia and other states was hardly the heighth of charity, no matter how one attempts to wrap up their bill of goods in god-talk.[/QUOTE]

Your point is well taken, but Lincoln wasn't around for Reconstruction. Ford Theater and all that.

[QUOTE]Now, at what point did your lawyer ancestor tumble to the fact that he was indulging in cannibalism?[/QUOTE]

Low blow, but you get a pass because I think you're swell.

Besides, what could he do as that was apparently all that was on the menu? But this was surely a very uncharacteristic failure of the otherwise justly celebrated [URL=http://www.chicagohs.org/wetwithblood/bloody/libby/libby5.htm]Southern hospitality[/URL], I'm sure.

Warmest regards,

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-04-20 06:22 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Quantrill]One more thing -- if the War Between the States was a just war, as defined by Catholic Just War Doctrine, then why was the pope at the time, Pope Pius IX, one of the South's most vocal defenders (as was Lord Acton, another Catholic)?[/QUOTE]

[URL=http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/irish/irish_pf.html]Lord Acton [/URL] - don't get me started on him. He hated the Irish Catholics, and considered them an inferior race that should be grateful for the many blessings of Saxon domination.

We Catholics don't believe that the Pope is infallible in all of his opinions. The current Pope says some very asinine stuff (and I'm being charitable). The man had an opinion. It has nothing to do with whether his opinion was right or wrong.

Please post a link on this, if possible. It's very interesting, and I was not aware of this.

Regards,

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-04-20 06:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE][Quantrill]This is simply not the case. The culture of the North and South have been different from the start. Toqueville wrote that those in the North had more in common with Canadians then with those in the South. They have always been separate politically, as well. It is not a accident that they are called "states" and not provinces or regions. They were originally separate political entities, and no state ever renounced or forfeited that status. In fact, New York and Virginia, among other states specifically reserved the right to secession when they ratified the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

You're coming into this conversation late, and I respectfully suggest that you review the previous posts.

Lincoln destroyed all arguments in support of your view in his debates with Douglas. All States signed on to a Constitution that expressly provided for the supremacy of federal law. The very fact of the Union implies that it was forever.

[QUOTE]There was no danger to the Union. It would have continued to exist as a voluntary compact among the rest of the states, including Virginia and Tennesse, since they only seceded after Lincoln made clear his intentions to attack the South.[/QUOTE]

The Union wasn't a voluntary compact of the States that could be quit at any time unilaterally. The Union was and is a state with all the rights and duties attributed to other states, including the presumed unlimited nature of its existence and the inviolability of its borders.

Lincoln couldn't "attack the South," since the South was a constituent part of the Union of which he was Commander in Chief. As President Lincoln had the right to send federal troops anywhere in the Union, and to ask Congress to build federal roads and camps for them.

[QUOTE]There was no insurrection. The Southern states were merely withdrawing from a union into which they had voluntarily entered. If Great Britain were to withdraw from the EU, would that constitute an insurrection?[/QUOTE]

I don't know whether the EU has a provison on seccession. Our Constition never had such a clause. It was always meant to be forever.

[QUOTE]You have misunderstood my argument. I have no problem with martial Christianity, and I view the Crusades as an achievement of Christendom, not something which needs to be apologized for. However, I think your patriotism for the America you love has blinded you in this instance.[/QUOTE]

How so?

[QUOTE]Lincoln most certainly did not meet all the criteria for a just war.[/QUOTE]

Please support your conclusion.

[QUOTE]That is open for debate. Lincoln was a sectional candidate who represented the interests of one section of the country. He won without a single Southern electoral vote. The South didn't consider him legitimate.[/QUOTE]

Wah. The South was part of the Union and was obliged to live with the promises made by their ancestors. That meant that it assumed the risk of getting outgunned in Congress. The South had no right to deny his election.

[QUOTE]This is not the case. Lincoln called out troops and invaded the South without Constitutional authority. The legislature only approved the actions later, after Lincoln was a de facto dictator, when they were presented as a *fait accompli.[/QUOTE] *

Again, Lincoln coulnd't invade the South because he was its President, because the South was an indivisible part of the Union, and because he had every right as Commander in Chief to position federal troops whereever his fancy may point.

[QUOTE]Two points here. First, a just war requires a good chance of success; it does not therefore follow that a war with a good chance of success is just. Second, the CSA did have a good chance of success. Considering that Lincoln expected the war to be over in a matter of months, and that the South lasted for three years seems to indicate that it was a pretty near thing. Also, Lee surrendered because he thought it was in the best interests of the entire country. If the Confederates had gone to guerrilla warfare, they could have made the South ungovernable indefinitely.[/QUOTE]

These things must be viewed prospectively, of course. Viewed from the position of 1860, I don't see how anyone could reasonably conclude that the South could win. It's been a while, but I believe that Shelby Foote took a similar position. The Union was just too big, too industrialized, too organized, and too fanatical. No way. I also offerred above into evidence the loud boasting of certain Confederates at the time of how easy the job would be as the sort of delusion hubris that drove the thing off the cliff.

[QUOTE]Either you are not sufficiently acquainted with Sherman's methods, or else you are viewing necessary force very broadly, indeed. [/QUOTE]

I am acquainted with Sherman's tactics, and yes my view of necessary force is very broad, indeed.

[QUOTE]There are some other criteria for a just war that I thought I would mention. These are taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As I said before, the United States would have continued to exist after the southern states left. The South was also not an "aggressor", at all. They merely wanted to be left alone.[/QUOTE]

See above. That isn't the case. The South had its own dreams of a slave empire. It didn't want to just be "left alone" in the sense that it was content to keep slavery in the places it already existed. The CSA wanted to be "left alone" in the sense of having a free hand to pursue their imperial dreams.

Lincoln made it clear that he would leave slavery alone in the South, but would not let it extend to the territories. That's what the war was about. Hell, Lincoln didn't want the war, he just wanted the territories. The South was willing to fight for its Empire, and the North was willing to do the same.

I think you idealize the CSA a bit too much. While there was much to admire there, the South was also infected by the same greed and mad grandiose dreams that drove the Boston Brahmins.

There was also a nearly complete inability to size up the situation as it really was, and a very large element of "popular delusion and the madness of crowds" in the Confederate cause. Look at the results for proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It was a misconceived thing from the get-go.

[QUOTE]Lincoln refused to even meet with peace envoys from the CSA, so I don't think he met this criterion.[/QUOTE]

Please cite to this, I don't know.

[QUOTE]I don't think the actions of Sherman and Butler (done with Lincoln's knowledge and blessing) acquit themselves well under this standard.[/QUOTE]

You do what you have to do to win. When the enemy is defeated, then you stop.

[QUOTE]You have every right to be proud of your ancestors, and I am not implying otherwise. My position is merely that Lincoln was an evil bastard, and that he did more to destroy the America of the Founding Fathers than any other man that has ever lived.[/QUOTE]

Lincoln was an evil bastard like Cromwell was and evil bastard. Cromwell was evil from the point of view of his enemies, but in the other side of the ledger he founded Parliament and laid the groundwork for the Greatness of England. Lincoln killed a lot of people, but he did it in order to preserve our country, and set the stage for 100 years of America's rise to greatness.

Evil? Yeah, I'll go with evil. I merely point out that sometimes the world needs evil bastards.

And what is your judgment of the Southern aristocrats who took their section into a war in pursuit of their own megalomoniacal dreams of empire, only to leave the whole thing in smoking ruin? Were they evil? Was Jefferson Davis evil? General Lee, who sent his troops into certain death at Getteysburg? Will you apply the same standards to them?

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-20 14:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I agree that even the implication that the stalwart Protestants you name wore leisure suits would be unforgiveable calumny, but I assure you I implied no such thing. No, the leisure suit mentality of my own misspent youth was purely our own Catlick doing. Perish the thought that a great heresiarch like Calvin would indulge the blow-dried look. This would be blasphemy.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Your point is well taken, but Lincoln wasn't around for Reconstruction. Ford Theater and all that.

No way to say for sure, but the actions and statements of Lincoln and those around him during the conflict and just after clearly indicate that a vindictive, punitive occupation was planned. Lincoln made the typical politician statements, but any leader planning a benevolent restoration would not have indulged/encouraged Sherman's psychotic rampages through civilian populations. Just because Lincoln checked out before the final act doesn't mean that anything would have been different, except (maybe) for the admittedly brilliant plan for those eventual barges to Liberia.

Low blow, but you get a pass because I think you're swell.

Allow me to clarify. That was a low blow aimed at the chosen profession of your ancestor, not his family. Hope there aren't any touchy lawyers out there developing class action suits against all lawyer-baiters (or on behalf of all offended rodents...)

Besides, what could he do as that was apparently all that was on the menu?
But this was surely a very uncharacteristic failure of the otherwise justly celebrated [URL=http://www.chicagohs.org/wetwithblood/bloody/libby/libby5.htm]Southern hospitality[/URL], I'm sure.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it was a triumph of the Christian charity of Grant, Sherman, [URL=http://www.civilwarweb.com/articles/09-00/butler.htm]Butler[/URL] and Lincoln as they invented the scorched earth brand of Christian warfare. I'm sure your departed uncle gave up thanks to his God for the brillance of God's chosen warriors that delivered him his furry snacks.

weisbrot

2004-04-20 15:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]That's all very interesting, but it's a purely intellectual exercise.

It will certainly have its place in any future American Christain Nationalist movement.

It was a regular in my post-Vatican II Catholic Church in Wisconsin, and I assure you that nobody thought of its Unitarian theology. I see no problem with it. [/QUOTE]

Intellectual exercise? I think not. You can do better than that.

*"The Transcendentalist-Unitarians believed that the evil in man could be rooted out by governmental action."

"Mrs. Howe proclaimed a gospel of judgment pictured by rows of affixed bayonets. Taking GodÃ¢â¬â¢s promise of deliverance from Genesis 3:15, she applied it not to Christ, but to the Union soldier who would receive GodÃ¢â¬â¢s grace by killing Southerners. This was certainly a different gospel; the kind of which the Apostle Paul said, Ã¢â¬ÅBut even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.Ã¢â¬Â (Galatians 1:8)"

"To Julia Ward Howe the work of Christ was incomplete. It was up to men through civil government to bring about a utopian society. She was quoted in her biography, Ã¢â¬ÅNot until the Civil War did I officially join the Unitarian church and accept the fact the Christ was merely a great teacher with no higher claim to preeminence in wisdom, goodness, and power than any other man.Ã¢â¬Â "

You really want to march to her tune?

I think you're engaging in lawyerese in order to save your contention about the "evil" CSA. At least I hope that's what it is, for your sake.

Walter Yannis

2004-04-20 15:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE][weisbrot]Thanks for clearing that up.[/QUOTE]

I must say that I was snickering all day imagining Luther in an off-green, polyester leisure suit with a blow-dried hair cut he felt real good about.

[QUOTE]No way to say for sure, but the actions and statements of Lincoln and those around him during the conflict and just after clearly indicate that a vindictive, punitive occupation was planned. Lincoln made the typical politician statements, but any leader planning a benevolent restoration would not have indulged/encouraged Sherman's psychotic rampages through civilian populations. Just because Lincoln checked out before the final act doesn't mean that anything would have been different, except (maybe) for the admittedly brilliant plan for those eventual barges to Liberia.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if it can be properly said that "Lincoln checked out." More like "Lincoln was checked out" or "Booth checked out Lincoln."

Ditto on the Liberia plan. I think that Lincoln understood that he had a threat from the hard abolitionist flank that he would have moved to check.

I agree that it's speculation.

[QUOTE]Allow me to clarify. That was a low blow aimed at the chosen profession of your ancestor, not his family. Hope there aren't any touchy lawyers out there developing class action suits against all lawyer-baiters (or on behalf of all offended rodents...)[/QUOTE]

In that case I take offense on behalf of rats all over the world for your scandalous comparison of them to LAWYERS. Yuch!!

In fact, I'm so outraged that I'm reporting you to the [URL=http://www.rmca.org/Clubinfo/rmcaform.htm]Rat and Mouse Gazette[/URL]. Expect a visit soon.

[QUOTE]Actually, it was a triumph of the Christian charity of Grant, Sherman, [URL=http://www.civilwarweb.com/articles/09-00/butler.htm]Butler[/URL] and Lincoln as they invented the scorched earth brand of Christian warfare. I'm sure your departed uncle gave up thanks to his God for the brillance of God's chosen warriors that delivered him his furry snacks.[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid this was another completely uncharacteristic failure of Southern hospitality - he wasn't served his meals at all (much less on proper silverware), but was actually required to trap these delectable mammalian bon-bons himself. How very rude.

He was my great-great uncle, on my father's side of the family, btw.

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-04-20 15:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE]I think you're engaging in lawyerese in order to save your contention about the "evil" CSA. At least I hope that's what it is, for your sake[/QUOTE]

You write as if her Unitarianism is immediately apparent in the plain text of her song. I'm not seeing it there, and frankly I learned this very interesting point only after your informative post. It has nothing to do with the propaganda value of the song, and that's what I'm interested in.

Also, I don't consider the CSA "evil." I certainly don't think Confederates were "evil." If I said or implied that, I certainly take it back (did I say that? I hope not). The CSA wasn't "evil", it was just a bad idea. A really bad idea with bad motivations that went up against a much bigger entity with equally bad motivations that it had no hope to defeat. It was a bad idea that left us all much, much worse off than before.

That's basically my position in a nutshell.

Walter

Quantrill

2004-04-20 18:03 | User Profile

Walter, I can see that I'm not going to change your mind, but I have to make a few more points. I assume you are dropping the just war tack of argument, since you did not address the specfic just war criteria that I mentioned that the War of the Northern Aggression did not meet, particular the rapacity against civilians of the South. If the victory of the North was as certain as you claim, then certainly such war crimes were unnecessary?

Despite what you feel may have been shown by Lincoln is his debates with Douglas, the states did not sign away their existence and sovereignty by joing the Union. The New England states, for example, threatened secession on a number of occasions, most notably during the War of 1812. They were never threatened with violence, and the assumption was that they would be within their rights to leave. Specifically, you did not address how the states could have been signing away their existence when Virginia, New York, and other states specifically reserved a right to secession in their Constitutional ratification documents.

This is what the whole war really comes down to -- was the Union voluntary or not? Since the states existed before the Union, since they entered into it voluntarily, since some states explicitly claimed their right of secession when they joined, since previous threats of secession by the New England states had been thought of as justified, it seems to me to be simply irrational to cling to the belief that the United States was supposed to be a unitary state. You may point to the Supremacy Clause, but that is a red herring. For a state to agree that federal law is supreme while the state is in the Union is NOT the same as agreeing that the state will never leave the Union. For example, the European Union does not have treaty provisions to deal with secession, and it does have treaty provisions that assert the supremacy of EU law over the law of member states. By your reasoning, these facts mean that England, France, et al have ceased to be separate states, that they can never withdraw from the EU, and that Brussels would be justified in burning London or Paris to the ground if they ever tried to do so. I also find it hard to understand how your antipathy towards the British Empire coexists so peacefully with your affection for the American Empire. What criteria do you consider for whether an empire is admirable?

[font=Verdana]Just for the record, [/font][font=Verdana]on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, in 1847, when Lincoln was a member of Congress, he said: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

Here is a link from [url="http://www.catholicism.org/pages/oldsouth.htm"]www.catholicism.org[/url], that address some of the relationships between the Old South and Catholicism.

Quantrill [/font]

weisbrot

2004-04-20 19:20 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]You write as if her Unitarianism is immediately apparent in the plain text of her song. I'm not seeing it there, and frankly I learned this very interesting point only after your informative post. It has nothing to do with the propaganda value of the song, and that's what I'm interested in.[/QUOTE]

That's the problem with signing onto the zealot's agenda. Sometimes their propaganda is just too thrilling to resist.

But this: I have read the fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel. As ye deal with My contempters, so with you My grace shall deal; Let the hero born of woman crush the serpent with his heel. Since God is marching on.

...comes real close to blasphemy, as it purports to misrepresent the Gospels. And this:

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, While God is marching on.

...actually is blasphemous, as it is stating (in very obvious Unitarian style) that man is able and has the responsibility to complete the work of Christ and bring about the inevitable utopia. Maybe Theodore Herzl or Marx were somehow whispering in her ear when she wrote this "hymn". Whatever, it is very obviously a slanted, political, anti-biblical screed- which, as you stated, makes it valuable as propaganda for some. Consider your alliances as you have done in the past, I might suggest.

Also, I don't consider the CSA "evil." I certainly don't think Confederates were "evil." If I said or implied that, I certainly take it back (did I say that? I hope not). The CSA wasn't "evil", it was just a bad idea. A really bad idea with bad motivations that went up against a much bigger entity with equally bad motivations that it had no hope to defeat. It was a bad idea that left us all much, much worse off than before.

Actually, you said that Lincoln was an "evil bastard" not long after saying "Lincoln's blessed memory will always live in the hearts of true Americans", and just before saying "Lincoln killed a lot of people, but he did it in order to preserve our country, and set the stage for 100 years of America's rise to greatness." You're wandering in the Dubya Desert, Walter.

That's basically my position in a nutshell.

It's cracked.

Paleoleftist

2004-04-20 23:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]this:

No, it isnÃÂ´t. The very term "Utopia" is the title of the book by Thomas Morus, who was a Catholic Saint. Had he uttered blasphemies, he would have been excommunicated rather than sainted. :thumbsup:
[IMG] http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0140449108.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/IMG]

weisbrot

2004-04-21 00:29 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Paleoleftist]No, it isnÃÂ´t. The very term "Utopia" is the title of the book by Thomas Morus, who was a Catholic Saint. Had he uttered blasphemies, he would have been excommunicated rather than sainted.[/QUOTE]

More's "Utopia" was based on the premise that private property is the basis of sin; amazing that he was able to take time out from burning Lutherans in order to mock the emerging West with his "Utopia". He was a consummate politician of his day, not a holy man.

I'll not take my lead from More, "saint" or no. And Unitarians are heretics and by nature are blasphemous.

Paleoleftist

2004-04-21 01:32 | User Profile

[QUOTE=weisbrot]More's "Utopia" was based on the premise that private property is the basis of sin; amazing that he was able to take time out from burning Lutherans in order to mock the emerging West with his "Utopia". He was a consummate politician of his day, not a holy man.

I'll not take my lead from More, "saint" or no. And Unitarians are heretics and by nature are blasphemous.[/QUOTE]

Unitarians may be heretics, but that doesnÃÂ´t prove everything they say is heretical.

If a Unitarian says 2 +2 =4 , itÃÂ´s still 4.

And More was a Catholic Saint, I assure you, so he canÃÂ´t have been heretic by definition.

Not a holy man? Well, Dr. Johnson called him "the person of the greatest virtue these islands ever produced". Good enough for me.

And money is the root of all evil. :yes:

[IMG] http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jsi0024l.jpg[/IMG]

And the West was not emerging. It was spiritually at its height, and, in a sense, has declined ever since.

More on Thomas More: [url]http://www.apostles.com/thomasmore.html[/url]

Walter Yannis

2004-04-21 05:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Actually, you said that Lincoln was an "evil bastard" not long after saying "Lincoln's blessed memory will always live in the hearts of true Americans", and just before saying "Lincoln killed a lot of people, but he did it in order to preserve our country, and set the stage for 100 years of America's rise to greatness." You're wandering in the Dubya Desert, Walter.[/QUOTE]

Note the use of quote marks. We're talking about shifting definitions. Lincoln did some things that would appear evil to his enemies, but he worked good overall. Like Cromwell. My Irish grandmother cursed the Great Protector's name at every opportunity, and while from the point of view of Ireland's legitimate interests Cromwell did many horrible things, overall his legacy was one of great English freedom of which we are the direct heirs.

I understand Southerners cursing Lincoln for the misery he inflicted on them, but we need to rise above that and see the good that came of it. Because of Lincoln's unbending devotion to duty, we as a people enjyed the benefits of a unified country based on free white labor for more than 100 years. This brought us as a people to unprecedented freedom, power and wealth. It's not much of stretch to say that Lincoln and his program made America the envy of the world. The fact that beginning almost exactly 100 years after his death that the thing began to unravel on the snags of the business his murder left unfinished works no reproach on him, but rather stands as a silent testament to his amazing foresight. He was our great American prophet.

Note well that the Southern plutocrats who gave us the Great American Train Wreck did not share Lincoln's noble vision of boats to Liberia, or even a separate Bantustan in North America. No, they liked their nogs up close and personal. History proved Lincoln right, and his antagonists wrong.

I merely ask that you and others recognize these hard facts. I know that this is about as unpopular as asking an Irishman to recognize the greatness of Cromwell, but let's all try to rise above the hurts of the past and look at things as they really are. History has moved on, and so should we.

There was much to admire in the Lost Cause, but it is a mistake to hitch our wagons to it moving forward, IMHO. Leave it in the past.

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-21 14:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Note the use of quote marks. We're talking about shifting definitions.

Quote marks were used because your shifting definitions were being quoted directly.

I understand Southerners cursing Lincoln for the misery he inflicted on them, but we need to rise above that and see the good that came of it. Because of Lincoln's unbending devotion to duty, we as a people enjyed the benefits of a unified country based on free white labor for more than 100 years. This brought us as a people to unprecedented freedom, power and wealth. It's not much of stretch to say that Lincoln and his program made America the envy of the world. The fact that beginning almost exactly 100 years after his death that the thing began to unravel on the snags of the business his murder left unfinished works no reproach on him, but rather stands as a silent testament to his amazing foresight. He was our great American prophet.

Among many other tragedies, we've endured the Fourteenth Amendment as a result of his devotion to "duty", i.e. the agenda of his mercantilist owners. The thing- the American experiment- actually began to unravel with his election, and finally fell apart with immigration reform. If you'll forgive another metaphor, the reform of 1965 was the final nail in the coffin built by Lincoln 100 years before. Whatever Lincoln may have claimed to have in mind for those barges isn't important, since after stamping out liberty throughout the North and South this task was left unstarted. Pointing to Lincoln's vaporous intentions for Liberia is a useless intellectual exercise, while noting the results of his devotion to "duty" is dealing with fact. If we're to indulge useless intellectual exercise, why not consider how Southern Agrarianism might have developed (if not wrecked by Lincoln) versus how our wonderful 100 years of growth has culminated in our tax dollars paying for the deaths of women and children in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Note well that the Southern plutocrats...

Might as well stop with that. The use of that term indicates either a serious misread or an intentional abuse of historical fact.

weisbrot

2004-04-21 14:15 | User Profile

[url]http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/January2001/0101LivingstonPaleo.html[/url]

From the January 2001 issue of Chronicles:

The Litmus Test for American Conservatism by Donald W. Livingston

Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this traditionÃ¢â¬âdeeply rooted in the Declaration of IndependenceÃ¢â¬âa great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.

When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years oldÃ¢â¬âthe same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of LincolnÃ¢â¬â¢s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.

Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a Ã¢â¬ÅstateÃ¢â¬Â in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to LincolnÃ¢â¬â¢s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?

These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the Ã¢â¬ÅCivil WarÃ¢â¬Â was in fact AmericaÃ¢â¬â¢s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a Ã¢â¬ÅconservativeÃ¢â¬Â rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative Ã¢â¬ÅunionÃ¢â¬Â of states into a French revolutionary Ã¢â¬ÅnationÃ¢â¬Â launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. LincolnÃ¢â¬â¢s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.

A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central governmentÃ¢â¬âif either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.

The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called Ã¢â¬Åthe chains of the Constitution,Ã¢â¬Â and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.

David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).

weisbrot

2004-04-21 14:44 | User Profile

From Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield. With a review of the events which led to the political revolution of 1860, by James G. Blaine. Vol. I, pp. 603-605. Opinion of Judge Black, November 20, 1860

The Tenth chapter of this volume having been given to the press in advance of formal publication, many inquiries have been received in regard to the text of Judge Black's opinion of November 20, 1860, referred to on pp. 231, 232. The opinion was submitted to the President by Judge Black as Attorney-General. So much of the opinion as includes the points which are specially controverted and criticised is here given Ã¢â¬â about one-half of the entire document. It is as follows:Ã¢â¬â

. . . "I come now to the point in your letter which is probably of the greatest practical importance. By the Act of 1807 you may employ such parts of the land and naval forces as you may judge necessary for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, in all cases where it is lawful to use the militia for the same purpose. By the Act of 1795 the militia may be called forth 'whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of Judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals.' This imposes upon the President the sole responsibility of deciding whether the exigency has arisen which requires the use of military force, and in proportion to the magnitude of that responsibility will be his care not to overstep the limits of his legal and just authority.

"The laws referred to in the Act of 1795 are manifestly those which are administered by the judges, and executed by the ministerial officers of the courts for the punishment of crime against the United States, for the protection of rights claimed under the Federal Constitution and laws, and for the enforcement of such obligations as come within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary. To compel obedience to these laws, the courts have authority to punish all who obstruct their regular administration, and the marshals and their deputies have the same powers as sheriffs and their deputies in the several States in executing the laws of the States. These are the ordinary means provided for the execution of the laws; and the whole spirit of our system is opposed to the employment of any other, except in cases of extreme necessity arising out of great and unusual combinations against them. Their agency must continue to be used until their incapacity to cope with the power opposed to them shall be plainly demonstrated. It is only upon clear evidence to that effect that a military force can be called into the field. Even then its operations must be purely defensive. It can suppress only such combinations as are found directly opposing the laws and obstructing the execution thereof. It can do no more than what might and ought to be done by a civil posse, if a civil posse could be raised large enough to meet the same opposition. On such occasions, especially, the military power must be kept in strict subordination to the civil authority, since it is only in aid of the latter that the former can act at all.

"But what if the feeling in any State against the United States should become so universal that the Federal officers themselves (including judges, district attorneys, and marshals) would be reached by the same influences, and resign their places? Of course, the first step would be to appoint others in their stead, if others could be got to serve. But in such an event, it is more than probable that great difficulty would be found in filling the offices. We can easily conceive how it might become altogether impossible. We are therefore obliged to consider what can be done in case we have no courts to issue judicial process, and no ministerial officers to execute it. In that event troops would certainly be out of place, and their use wholly illegal. If they are sent to aid the courts and marshals, there must be courts and marshals to be aided. Without the exercise of those functions which belong exclusively to the civil service, the laws cannot be executed in any event, no matter what may be the physical strength which the Government has at its command. Under such circumstances to send a military force into any State, with orders to act against the people, would be simply making war upon them.

"The existing laws put and keep the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty. If the means given you to collect the revenue and execute the other laws be insufficient for that purpose, Congress may extend and make them more effectual to those ends.

"If one of the States should declare her independence, your action cannot depend on the rightfulness of the cause upon which such declaration is based. Whether the retirement of the State from the Union be the exercise of a right reserved in the Constitution, or a revolutionary movement, it is certain that you have not in either case the authority to recognize her independence or to absolve her from her Federal obligations. Congress, or the other States in Convention assembled, must take such measures as may be necessary and proper. In such an event, I see no course for you but to go straight onward in the path you have hitherto trodden Ã¢â¬â that is, execute the laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in your hands, and act generally upon the assumption that the present constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Gevernment continue to exist, until a new code of things shall be established either by law or force.

"Whether Congress has the constitutionsal right to make war against one or more States, and require the Executive of the Federal Government to carry it on by means of force to be drawn from the other States, is a question for Congress itself to consider. It must be admitted that no such power is expressly given; nor are there any words in the Constitution which imply it. Among the powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, is that 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and to make rules concerning captures on land and water.' This certainly means nothing more than the power to commence and carry on hostilities against the foreign enemies of the nation. Another clause in the same section gives Congress the power 'to provide for calling forth the militia,' and to use them within the limits of the State. But this power is so restricted by the words which immediately follow that it can be exercised only for one of the following purposes:

To execute the laws of the Union; that is, to aid the Federal officers in the performance of their regular duties.
To suppress insurrections against the State; but this is confined by Article 4, Section 4, to cases in which the State herself shall apply for assistance against her own people.
To repel the invasion of a State by enemies who come from abroad to assail her in her own territory.

All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war. Our forefathers do not seem to have thought that war was calculated 'to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' There was undoubtedly a strong and universal conviction among the men who framed and ratified the Constitution, that military force would not only be useless, but pernicious, as a means of holding the States together.

"If it be true that war cannot be declared, nor a system of general hostilities carried on by the Central Government against a State, then it seems to follow that an attempt to do so would be ipso facto an expulsion of such State from the Union. Being treated as an alien and an enemy, she would be compelled to act accordingly. And if Congress shall break up the present Union by unconstitutionally putting strife and enmity and armed hostility between different sections of the country, instead of the domestic tranquillity which the Constitution was meant to insure, will not all the States be absolved from their Federal obligations? Is any portion of the people bound to contribute their money or their blood to carry on a contest like that?

"The right of the General Government to preserve itself in its whole constitutional vigor by repelling a direct and positive aggression upon its property or its officers cannot by denied. But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme. The States are colleagues of one another, and if some of them shall conquer the rest, and hold them as subjugated provinces, it would totally destroy the whole theory upon which they are now connected.

"If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General Government in the exercise of its proper constitutional functions.

"I am, very respectfully, yours, etc.,

"J. S. BLACK."

Walter Yannis

2004-04-21 14:52 | User Profile

Weisbrot - in your opinion, did the South act in any way - er - hastily or perhaps even imprudently in the course of the unfortunate events of 1860/61?

Also, why is use of the word "plutocrat" to describe some of the fabulously wealthy denizens of the CSA ruling class inappropriate?

Walter

Walter Yannis

2004-04-21 15:06 | User Profile

[QUOTE]These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. [B]But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Well, that's the issue and I think it obvious that while reasonable minds could differ on the subject, Lincoln made a powerful (and to my mind utterly compelling) case that this simply is not so. The Union was forever. Always was, always is, always will be. His comparison of the United States to the Soviet Union speaks volumes of the author's opinion of our country.

And note well that the author simply posits this central thesis and avoids the difficult arguments set forth above. He's ducking Lincoln's mighty rhetoric, and who could blame him, poor mortal that he is?

I agree with the nationalist historians the author cites that Lincoln did what history - and the Constitution - demanded of him.

The lion's share of blame for the mess is rightly placed at the feet of those wealthy Southerners who would not relinquish their dreams of a greater slave empire and preferred to make war on the Constitution and the Flag instead of making a reasonable compromise with a great man in regard to the issue of slavery in the Territories.

Had they been willing to allow the entry of the territories into the Union as free states, and contented themselves with their slaves in their traditional homes, then over 600,000 Americans wouldn't have died and the South would not have been destroyed. Indeed, the Radical Republicans would very likely not have come to power. There would have been no 14th Amendment - no vast extension of federal power made inevitable by the war. Clearly, it would have been much, much better than it is now.

But no, they clung to their grandiose dreams, and the rest is history. They provoked it. The blood is on their hands.

Lincoln did what he had to do, and thank Heaven he did.

The blame lies with those who dared raised their hand against the Flag.

May it always be thus.

Warmest regards,

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-21 18:11 | User Profile

[url]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p319_Dickson.html[/url] Shattering the Icon of Abraham Lincoln Sam Dickson

The astonishing thing about this paper on Abraham Lincoln is that it is needed at all or is considered controversial. In my opinion, one does not have to be a scholar to ferret out obscure and suppressed facets of history to see Abraham Lincoln as he was.

My views on this subject are not unusual. They are those of the overwhelming majority of Southerners both immediately before, during and for decades after the War between the States. My views were also shared by many in the North and the West. Only the passage of time and the studious cultivation of the myth of Abraham Lincoln, coupled with his timely death (timely in the sense of being providential for his place in history) have caused Abraham Lincoln to be raised to the level of a sacred cow in American history.

Nevertheless, even contemporary events show that the place and role of Abraham Lincoln in American history are a subject which is very sensitive to the Establishment. When Professor M.E. Bradford of the University of Dallas was nominated by President Reagan to head the National Endowment for the Humanities, a storm of abuse and controversy exploded. Professor Bradford's sin was that he had the effrontery to criticize Abraham Lincoln. The New York Times launched the attack, followed by a host of other establishment liberal spokesmen and institutions and joined by so-called "neo-conservatives" such as George Will. Mr. Will excoriated Professor Bradford as "the nostalgic Confederate remnant of the Conservative movement" and made it clear that neo-conservatives have no use for any criticism of Abraham Lincoln.1 Obviously, Professor Bradford touched a raw and sensitive nerve when he criticized a president who has been dead for over 120 years. One wonders after the lapse of so many years why this matter is such a vital, important and sensitive one.

Part of the reason for the importance of Abraham Lincoln in the iconography of the left is explained by the Whig Theory of History which is shared by most leftists in one form or another. The Whig Theory of History holds that history, in particular the history of the English-speaking peoples, is the history of freedom broadening down from precedent to precedent as progress is made away from tradition, authority, monarchy, and aristocracy toward democracy and egalitarianism. The leftist adherents to the Whig Theory of History see Lincoln as part of a continuum running from Runnymede to Cromwell to the so-called Glorious Revolution to the American Revolution to Lincoln to Wilson to Roosevelt to Kennedy and beyond.

Of course, this Whig Theory of History is preposterous and fallacious and maintained only by a thoroughly dishonest editing of historical events. However, the leftists are correct in viewing Lincoln and the effect of his career on the course of the United States as moving America away from an aristocratic society founded upon traditions, authority and property and toward a mass democratic society founded upon universal suffrage, equality and unlimited government-mandated social experimentation. While it is not remarkable that leftists should admire Abraham Lincoln, it is noteworthy and surprising that the Lincoln Myth has been marketed to moderate and conservative Americans.

Part of the success enjoyed by the Lincoln Myth lies in the timeliness of his death By dying though an assassination at the conclusion of the war and prior to the commencement of a bitter and cruel peace, Lincoln could be used by all factions in America and could be opposed by none. Hence, Radical Republicans used his death, as well as a contrived propaganda campaign alleging that Southern leaders, including Jefferson Davis, had plotted Lincoln's assassination, to inflame Northern opinion and to solidify their leadership of the North in a campaign of humiliation, robbery and persecution of the conquered and prostrate South and its vanquished leaders.2 Southerners were likewise in no position to attack Lincoln. The South's situation after the war was similar to that of post-World War II Germany, that is to say, utterly defeated, prostrate, the victim of inflammatory lies about atrocities at Andersonville, etc. Hence, the only prudent course for Southerners was to promote those aspects of the Lincoln Myth (e.g., his alleged kindliness and magnanimity) so as to defuse Northern anger and work patiently for the amelioration of the condition of the South.

Having touched on the foregoing points, let us examine the real Abraham Lincoln and his true place in American history. I have selected the following areas of scrutiny:

Lincoln the man; Lincoln from the standpoint of American patriotism and nationalism; Lincoln and the coming of the War, Lincoln's conduct of the War, Lincoln and his place in American history. 1. Lincoln The Man The official image of Lincoln the man according to the Lincoln Myth runs as follows: a man of upright character and honesty, a man of peace and compassion for his Southern adversaries, and a Christian of sincere religious convictions.

All of the above articles of faith are demonstrably false.

Lincoln was a demagogic politician who maneuvered with consummate skill on all sides of many burning issues of the day. Thus, in the famous debates with Stephen Douglas his position on the question of Negro equality became several positions according to which area of Illinois was hosting the debate. His pronouncements ranged from denials of Negro equality and advocacy of an inferior and degraded state of civil rights for the Negro to affirmations of the equality of Negroes. This is not to say that Lincoln was without principle. It is my belief, which will be developed in this paper, that Lincoln was an abiding leftist but at the same time was a crafty and dissimulating politician who was willing shamelessly to try to fool all of the people, all of the time.

As to Lincoln's alleged sincere "Christian" religious convictions, it is well known to students of Lincoln that he was an atheist and free-thinker. While like any crafty politician Lincoln was willing to invoke the name of God to gamer support, no great importance should be laid to this practice which is common in all democratic societies.

Also, Lincoln believed in omens, was often depressed by seeing blackbirds, and would interpret dreams that he had in ways that can only be described as superstitious. Lincoln's superstition is frequently confused with piety.

Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon, was deeply disturbed after Lincoln's death by popular portrayals of Lincoln as a Christian saint. As Dwight G. Anderson, author of a recent study of Abraham Lincoln, points out, Herndon knew that Lincoln had written an essay denying the divinity of the Bible. This essay or book of Lincoln's came to be referred to as the "infidel book." Herndon's lectures and writings on the subject of Lincoln's atheism provoked immediate defense of Lincoln as a devout Christian. However, as Herndon shrewdly pointed out, the fact of Lincoln's early atheism cannot be denied and Lincoln's political career would have been vastly helped by some public revelation of a dramatic conversion to Christianity. No such conversion has ever been established. Long after the controversy over Lincoln's atheism or devotion to Christianity, a statement of Lincoln's was discovered which Lincoln issued in reply to accusations that he was not a Christian.3 Lincoln admitted that he was not a member of any Christian church, but stated that he had not denied the truth of the scriptures and had not spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general or of any particular Christian denomination. Lincoln's statement shows that Herndon was correct. The statement is artfully worded but does not indicate any conversion to Christianity and does not deny the assertions of Herndon that Lincoln had denied the divinity of the scriptures. Lincoln says only that he had not denied their truth. Lincoln is to be admired for his honesty in this statement in not concocting some vote-catching, born-again experience. Our admiration for his candor would be greater had he desisted from piously self-serving references to the Almighty in political speeches throughout his career.

Lincoln As Patriot And Nationalist Regarding Lincoln's patriotism and devotion to the Union, he was devoted rather to the aggrandizement of his section and of his faction, which dominated that section. When broader national interests came into conflict with the interests of Lincoln and his faction, Lincoln took the side of his faction, as will be shown later in dealing with the Mexican-American War.

Lincoln's first term in the Illinois legislature coincided with the initial rumblings in Northern legislatures of the dangerous and divisive slavery issue. Responsible Americans of both sections recognized the danger posed to the American Union by the slavery issue and sought to head it off. One means of doing this was to have the legislatures of both sections pass identical resolutions expressing a national consensus on the slavery issue from a moderate point of view.

Stephen Douglas, a true American patriot, was among those instrumental in seeking to have the Illinois legislature pass this resolution. The resolution was overwhelmingly passed with only a tiny minority voting against it. Among the handful of opponents was a freshman member of the legislature, Abraham Lincoln.4 Beginning with this incident, Douglas was to be a lifelong adversary of Lincoln.

Lincoln's position on the Illinois resolution seriously impeaches those who try to make of Lincoln a white racist. The fact that Lincoln was willing to go that far early in his career indicates that he was committed to Negro equality at the inception of his career and was on the far left of contemporary American thought about the Negro and slavery issues. Furthermore, Lincoln's opposition to the resolution is strong evidence for his willingness to disrupt the Union in order to promote his own faction's success. Certainly, his position on the resolution has to be laid to his discredit in assessing his career.

This is not to say that Lincoln did not craftily dissemble his views on slavery and the Negro as a practical politician, realizing the limitations within which he strove to realize his ideals. For instance, in late 1854 Lincoln was furious when he learned that radical abolitionist Republicans meeting in Springfield had adopted fiery and-slavery resolutions and formed a party state central committee, on which they took the liberty of placing Lincoln's name.

I have been perplexed some to understand how my name was placed in that committee. I was not consulted on the subject; nor was I apprised of the appointment until I discovered it by accident two or three weeks afterwards. I suppose that my opposition to the principle of slavery is as strong as that of any number of the Republican party; but I had also supposed that the extent [original emphasis] to which I feel authorized to catty that opposition practically was not at all satisfactory to that party.5

This letter shows that Lincoln was, in fact, a staunch opponent of slavery but that he recognized, better than some abolitionists sharing his views, that it was necessary to be careful in approaching their goal.

Lincoln's aggrandizement of his sectional and factional advantage at the expense of the nation as a whole is most clearly evidenced by his opposition to the war with Mexico. President James K. Polk, certainly one of the greatest American presidents, was responsible for almost doubling our national territory by means of the war with Mexico. Through his efforts and through the heroism in battle of many genuine American nationalists like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, a whole empire was won, out of which would be carved many of our states, from Texas to California.

President Polk's war with Mexico was not universally popular, however, even in the America of the 1840's. (It is noteworthy that many modem Liberals consider the Mexican War to have been the worst and most immoral war in our history, preferring such wars as the War between the States, WWI and WWII as "moral" wars.)6 Among Polk's opponents in the matter of the war was the freshman congressman from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln. On January 12, 1848, Lincoln spoke in the House of Representatives defending the vote of his party a few days before in declaring "that the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President."7 It was, in Carl Sandburg's words, a fiercely partisan speech, which led to strong criticism of Lincoln in Illinois. The result was that Abraham Lincoln was defeated for re-election to Congress due to his opposition to national expansion and to the war with Mexico.

It is also ironic to note that in his speech attacking President Polk Lincoln made two statements which can be cited against him in his own conduct in the War between the States. Lincoln stated:

Any people any when, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better ... Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.8

These remarks clearly can be cited to justify and condone the actions of the South in seceding from the Union in 1860 and 1861. To further the irony, Lincoln condemned President Polk's initiation of the War as unconstitutional on the grounds that Polk had sent American troops into battle without congressional authority,9 but later, Lincoln would take far more dramatic steps to initiate war by executive fiat without prior congressional approval, as required by the Constitution, when it served his interests to do so in the secession crisis.

Lincoln and the Coming of The War As we have noted previously, Lincoln in the inception of his public career in the Illinois State house took the radical position on slavery by opposing the resolutions intended to soothe public feelings in both sections.

The slavery issue continued to torment and divide the nation. However, it would be a mistake to focus, as do most Northern historians, solely upon the slavery issue as the cause of division between the two sections.

The North was already losing its Anglo-Saxon character and was rapidly changing with the inundation of non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants from Europe. Furthermore, the North was industrializing and her economic interests were in many respects directly antithetical to those of the South. Hence the North desired the erection of a high tariff barrier to enable herself to sell her industrial products with a competitive advantage over imports from Europe. Likewise, most of the nation's foreign exchange was earned by exports from the South. The tariff issue was critical in the division of the nation and probably played the major role in determining the North upon a policy of aggression and conquest when the secession came.

Lincoln had always been a national Whig. His policies were those in favor of a central banking system, which he championed dring his first term in the Illinois legislature.10 The Bank of the United States which Andrew Jackson opposed was similar to our present day Federal Reserve System. Lincoln opposed resolutions in the Illinois legislature supporting President Andrew Jackson, who had vetoed the National Bank.11 Lincoln also favored high tariffs, a strongly centralized government and internal impnvements.12 Lincoln himself had a direct personal reason to support such policies, since he derived a significant portion of his income from serving as attorney for the railroad interests.13

The estrangement and antagonism between the two sections gradually accelerated. In 1858 Lincoln made his famous "House Divided" Speech In this speech, Lincoln declared:

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new -- North as well so South.14

Entranced by the Lincoln cult, Americans are prone to read or hear the House Divided Speech with a tingling of the spine, impressed by its dramatic tone. Set in the context of developing regional antagonism, however, the speech seems to be that of an irresponsible demagogue. The Union had existed half slave and half free from its inception. There appears to be no logical reason why it could not have continued to have existed in that fashion, given responsible leadership and good will on both sides, until slavery was eliminated by the progress of technology. Certainly the delivery of such a speech was not responsible leadership, as it did much to infuriate and alarm the South. This especially was true with Lincoln's election, which the South saw as the election of a man who seemed to have declared himself on the side of those who intended to violate the constitutional rights and property rights of Southerners and to interfere with their self-government. As is the case with many dramatic speeches, the speech has its thrilling aspects, but was utterly irresponsible and led to tragic results.

Lincoln's activity with regard to the developing sectional strife contrasts sharply with that of his major opponent Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas consistently sought the national advantage, having been a staunch supporter of President Polk in the war with Mexico. Douglas strived to promote reconciliation and cooperation between North and South, and to develop workable compromises that avoided dogmatic impasses on either side.15

Lincoln in the Lincoln-Douglas debates was his characteristic demagogic and unprincipled self. In northern Illinois, in which the German and other non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants now were playing a major and perhaps decisive role, Lincoln declared himself dramatically for Negro equality, raising his hands to the heavens and declaring: "In the right to eat the bread his own hands have earned he is the equal of Judge Douglas, or of myself, or any living man." However, in southern Illinois, where conservative and Southern sympathies ran strong, Lincoln declared himself opposed to granting Negroes civil rights and stated that they were in fact an inferior race.16

Likewise, in 1858 in the course of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln wrote a meditation which was not used in his debates and which his admiring biographer Sandburg described as a "private affair between him and his conscience." This statement ran as follows:

Yet I have never failed -- do not now fail -- to remember that in the Republican cause there is a higher aim than that of mere office. I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the slave trade by Great Britain was agitated a hundred years before it was a final success; that the measure had its open fire-eating opponents; its stealthy "don't care" opponents; its dollar and cent opponents; its inferior race opponents; its negro equality opponents; and its religious and good order opponents; that all these opponents got offices, and their adversaries got none. But I also remember that though they blazed like tallow candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, stank in the dark for a brief season, and were remembered no more, even by the smell ... I am proud, in my passing speck of time, to contribute an humble mite to that glorious consummation, which my own poor eyes may not last to see.17

With his election in 1860, the real test of Abraham Lincoln's leadership in his country began. State after state in the South withdrew from the Union, as it became obvious that the South was extremely agitated by his election. Lincoln had been elected with only 39% of the popular vote. Only the splintering of the moderate-to-conservative majority made possible the election of this President. No president since has ever been elected with so little popular support. Certainly no president has ever been placed in office over the determined opposition of so many of his fellow citizens.18

Had Stephen A. Douglas been elected, it is almost certain secession and civil war would have been averted.

In his campaign Lincoln had avoided speaking on vital issues. In the words of Reinhart H. Luthin, one of Lincoln's better known biographers, "From his election to his inauguration Lincoln's handling, or rather lack of handling of the bedeviling secession crisis might be termed 'calculated inactivity' for he was to do nothing about it nor was he to provide much leadership, with the Republic tottering in the balance."19

Lincoln had long believed that Southern talk of secession was nothing but bluff. In 1856 he had stated in a speech in Galena, Illinois: "All this talk about the dissolution of the Union is humbug."20 He grossly underestimated secessionist sentiment and overestimated pro-Union strength in the upper South and border slave regions.

After Lincoln's election, a conservative Senator, John J. Crittenden of Kentucky, proposed a compromise to head off secession by extending the Missouri Compromise line dividing slave states from free states all the way to the Pacific.21 Lincoln rejected this compromise and marshalled his party against all other compromises with the South. Lincoln said as follows concerning this:

Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost and, ere long must be done again. The dangerous ground -- that into which some of our friends have a hankering to run -- is Pop. Sov. [Popular Sovereignty]. Have none of it. Stand firm. The tug has to come, and better now, than any time haeafter.22

Lincoln also instructed his legislative spokesman from Illinois in Washington not to compromise with the South.23

Pleas pound into Lincoln from an regions of the country implonng him to make some gesture to the South and give leadership at that critical time. However, as Luthin describes it, Lincoln continued his "sphinx-like silence" until his inauguration.24

The Lincoln cultists often quote a letter which Lincoln wrote during this period, to Alexander Hamilton Stephens of Georgia, who later would serve as Vice President of the Confederacy. In this letter, Lincoln is quoted as saying:

For your eyes only

Springfield, Ill. Dec. 22, 1860

Hon. A. H. Stephens

My Dear Sir

Your obliging answer to my short note is just received and for which please accept my thanks -- I fully appreciate the present peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me.

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with the slaves, or with them about their slaves? If they do I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not as an enemy, that there is no cause for such fear --

The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.

I suppose, however, this does not meet the case -- You think slavery is right and ought to be extended while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted -- That I suppose is the rule -- It certainly is the only substanual difference between us --

Yours very truly,

A. Lincoln25

The interesting thing about this letter, which as I say is often quoted by Lincoln's admirers to show him in the official posture of the loving father holding out his hands to his erring Southern sons, is that the letter was never publicized and never received any attention in the South. The reason for this is that the preamble of the letter, which Lincoln's admirers delete in the quotation, forbade Stephens, a Unionist, upon his honor from showing it to anyone else, stating that the letter is for his eyes only.

Lincoln and Stephens had served together in Congress and knew each other very well. Lincoln, it may be anticipated, knew that Stephens would not make use of the letter in his efforts to keep Georgia (and thereby the South) in the Union in obedience to Lincoln's urgings.

The question then arises of why Lincoln wrote the letter at all. No one can answer that question with certainly but it would appear that Lincoln believed that he could entice Stephens into coming North and siding with the Union in the impending sectional war. This policy of Lincoln worked with his later Vice-President, Andrew Johnson, who had also served in Congress with Lincoln, representing eastern Tennessee and who went North and supported the Union during the War.

Certainly any responsible American would agree that Lincoln should have moved energetically to try to deter the secession movement. The fact is that Lincoln did not. On his way to Washington Lincoln visited with a number of the so-called "war governors" in the North. These were men like Governer Andrew G. Curtin of Pennsylvania who were in favor of coercing the South by armed force into remaining in the Union and thus remaining subject to the North's tariff laws.

While in Pennsylvania, Lincoln spoke at Independence Hall. He alluded to the Declaration of Independence and made clear that the Constitution was in conflict with the Declaration of Independence, and that it was his intention to reform the Constitution to bnng it in line with the principles of the Declaration. Lincoln stated as follows:

I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence... if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle [equality] I was about to say that I would rather be assassinated on this spot than to spender it.26

These statements were not calculated to soothe suspicions of Southern conservatives; they also reflect Lincoln's innate radicalism and dissatisfaction with the American Constitution. His dissatisfaction with the limitations imposed on government and executive power by the Constitution were later to become evident in his precipitation of the war and his conduct of that war.

As Stephen Douglas pointed out in the United States Senate, as the secession crisis developed, there were three possible courses for the United States to take in dealing with the sectional crisis: 1 The Union could be saved by compromise and reconciliation between men of good will in both sections; 2 The South could be allowed to withdraw in peace and set up her own government independent of the North; 3 The South could be coerced by military force into remaining subject to the Union. According to Douglas, the best solution would have been one based on compromise and reconciliation. The next best would have been to allow the South to depart in peace. The worst was to resort to violent military force to coerce the South into the Union like a conquered province.27

In his inaugural address, Lincoln was ambiguous, making his famous gesture to the South in its conclusion but also containing passages stating that he would not recognize secession and would enforce the laws in all states. His original draft was much more warlike but Seward convinced him to soften it.28

Continuing efforts were made to negotiate a peaceful separation. Virginia sent three commissioners to meet with Lincoln shortly prior to Lincoln's attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, which led to the bombardment of Fort Sumter and the outbreak of the War. According to the Virginia commissioners, Lincoln equivocated as to whether he would resort to armed force to coerce the seceded states back into the Union. Virginia at that point had not seceded but had placed her legislature in a state of continuous session to await further developments. The Virginia commissioners had made it clear that if the Lincoln administration resorted to armed force against the South, Virginia and the other states of the South which had not already seceded would also go out and join their seceded sisters.29

Lincoln equivocated with the commissioners. However, his greatest concern voiced to them was, "What about my tariff?"30 This shows once again Lincoln's committment to the huge vested industrial and financial interests of the North. The war in Lincoln's mind had to be fought to establish the supremacy of that financial oligarchy. The tariff under Lincoln was instated with a vigor and was raised to unparalleled heights.3l This economic policy of anti- Southem tariffs and economic exploitation of the South was to be continued for almost eighty years after the war and was only abandoned in the face of the crisis of World War II.32

Lincoln after his inauguration temporarized and maneuvered. All proposals in the so-called "Peace Congress" failed, receiving no support from the administration. It was necessary to provoke the South into firing the first shot so as to rally Northem opinion, at that point strongly divided, behind a war to coerce the South. This was achieved by dispatching resupply ships to Fort Sumter, thus breaking his commitments and assurances to the South that he would not reinforce the Federal forts in the South.33

When the news of the planned resupply of Fort Sumter reached the South, the bombardment of the fort was begun. Lincoln then used the act of finng upon the American flag to rally Northem opinion to his cause and put up a public pretense that the situation in the South was merely that of a minority of conspirators preventing the expression of the true Union sentiments of the loyalist majorities in the South. Lincoln may have believed this himself, because he always overestimated his ability to divide the South and to provoke animosity between the social classes in the South. It would not be until the war had been raging for over a year that Lincoln would realize that this was not to be.

After the surrender of Fort Sumter, Lincoln issued an executive proclamation calling for 75,000 volunteers to form an army to invade the South. Virginia and the other remaining Southem states withdrew and the Confederacy assumed its basic geography.34

In 1848 during his efforts to oppose the war with Mexico, Lincoln had attacked President Polk upon the floor of the House for having sent units of the United States Army into a disputed border region between Mexico and the United States. Lincoln said that the President's action violated the Constitution's requirement that only Congress could declare war. Lincoln's own action in raising an army by Executive Order was a far greater violation of these same provisions of the Constitution dealing with the declaration of war, than the alleged violations of President Polk which he had attacked. The "Executive Order Army" could be said to be the precursor of the whole litany of executive orders which have been a favorite device of presidents from the Roosevelt administration onward. The war governors, nevertheless, hastened to provide Lincoln with the militia units and volunteers which he needed to commence the hostilities and the war was on.

The efforts of true American patriots like Stephen A. Douglas to save the Union by conciliation and compromise had been successfully thwarted. Lincoln had achieved his opportunity to rededicate the nation to the radical principles of the Declaration of Independence and to get around the impediment of the Constitution.

Lincoln's Conduct of the War A civil war is usually marked by an intensity in feeling and an atrociousness of conduct which is often lacking in wars between rival powers. It is fair to say that the War between the States was waged by the Lincoln administration with a barbarity rarely equalled in any other war in American history.

Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the nation. He assumed the power to close newspapers and in fact closed hundreds of them in the North which dared criticize his policies. He arrested elected officials, including former members of Congress, who opposed him.35

Vice-President John C. Breckenridge, who finished second to Lincoln in electoral votes in the 1860 election, presided over the official election and swore in his successor, Hannibal Hamlin. Breckenridge, a Kentuckian, was opposed to disunion and to Lincoln. His criticism of Lincoln was censored and the Associated Press was barred from reporting his remarks. Breckenridge remained in Washington until after the First Battle of Manassas, hoping and working for peace.36 He later became a Confederate general.

The first taste of what was to come in the South in the course of the war was seen in the border states. In Missouri, the Anglo- Saxon population was disarmed and the state was garrisoned with volunteer units of Germans who could be counted on to support the Lincoln administration. The Anglo-Saxon population of the whole western tier of counties in Missouri were deported from their homes by General Ewing's General Order Number 11, which depopulated the region by forcibly evacuating the women and children on the shortest of notice, along with burning their houses and stealing their property. Among those experiencing this deportation and expropria tion was the mother of later President Harry S. Truman. The memories of the sufferings she and her family had endured while she was a small child stayed with Mrs. Truman throughout her life. On one occasion the aspiring young politician told his mother that he had been invited to dinner at the house of a prominent family in Kansas City. His mother admonished him to turn the silver over and check the hallmark because, "It's probably ours." On another occasion, Truman showed his mother his new National Guard uniform only to be ordered out of the house because the pants were blue.

In Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, Northem troops fired on pro-Southem demonstrators, dispersed legislatures, expelled elected officials and otherwise demonstrated that no respect for constitutional rights or liberties would be shown during the course of the war.

It is amazing that the Lincoln cultists have been able to shield Lincoln from the Northem atrocities committed during the war under his tenure as Commander-in-Chief of its armies. The standard line on this point, usually implied rather than stated, is that Lincoln sat in the White House exuding love for Southemers, in blissful ignorance of what Sherman, Ewing, Pope, Butler and others were doing. This, of course, is unworthy of belief and is an impossibility, given the widespread jubilant publicity in the North over the depredations of the Northern armies against the Southem people.37

General Ewing's General Order Number 11 in Missouri was merely a taste of what was to come throughout the South. The most famous and widely known example of Northem atrocities was the campaign of General William Tecumseh Sherman in Georgia. No portion of this country has ever felt the scourge of war like the State of Georgia experienced it.

The city of Atlanta, after its surrender, was burned to the ground, and only a handful of churches and a few outlying residences escaped the holocaust. More than 4,000 edifices were burned, which was approximately 92% of the city. Only 450 buildings of any sort escaped this ruthless burning, in a city which had a population of 14,000. Captain Daniel Oakey of the Second Massachusetts Volunteers recounted the bunting of Atlanta as follows: "Sixty thousand of us witnessed the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band and that of the 33rd Massachusetts played martial airs and operatic selections."38 Like the bombing of Dresden, this massive destruction of civilian property was of no military importance. On November 15, 1864, the march of the Northern troops across Georgia from Atlanta to Savannah began. Sherman created a charred avenue over 40 miles wide, destroying all railroads, seizing all provisions, pillaging, plundering and burning. There was no military force available to obstruct his course.39

The devastation in Georgia was so complete that entire communities disappeared never to be heard of again. Perhaps the most dramatic of these occurred at the midtown of New Manchester on Sweetwater Creek in Douglas County, Georgia. The Union forces had occupied the town without a shot being fired on July 2, 1864. Most of the workers in the mill were women and were told to return to their homes. They were told that they would be taken out of the path of the advancing army. The mill was destroyed and the town was placed under guard. On July 8, the entire town, including the homes of the workers, was burned to the ground. Having destroyed the entire town, only the population remained, most of them women and children with a few men. The women and children were separated from the men and herded into wagons. The wagon train then set off for Marietta, Georgia, some 16 miles away. During the journey the women were forced to endure the sexual advances of the Union soldiers. In Marietta the group was joined by a similar group of deported women from Roswell, Georgia. On July 20, the entire group of women and children were shipped by train from Georgia to Louisville, Kentucky.40 Not one woman or child is known to have returned to New Manchester. To the credit of the North, even in that section, there was strong opposition to the policy of deporting women and children.

Are we really to believe that Abraham Lincoln knew nothing of the depredations of Sherman's troops? The atrocious deeds of his troops were reported widely throughout the Northern press and extended over a period of many months, not ending until the final surrender of the Confederacy, by which time Sherman had similarly torched Columbia, South Carolina, and laid waste to parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina Sherman, besides his legendary "War is hell" comment, wrote his wife in Savannah, Georgia, of popular opinion of the Northen liberators: "They regard us just as the Romans did the Goths and the parallel is not unjust."41

However, one should not be too hasty in condemning Lincoln. Lincoln shared the democratic sensitivity to deportations which certainly justify his being included in the trinity of Lincoln, Wilson and F.D.R. on the subject of deportations. Not all deportations were tolerated by the White House during the war. Thus for instance when General Grant ordered Jewish speculators expelled from Tennessee, Lincoln quickly issued a peremptory order to Grant, rescinding his order and rebuking him for having deported the Jewish speculators.42 Like Wilson, F.D.R. and other ideological descendants of Lincoln, Lincoln knew where a democracy has to draw the line. After all, a distinction has to be made between Anglo-Saxon women and children, textile workers and farmers, and Jewish speculators.

Nor were the outrages of the Northern armies confined to the states of Georgia and South Carolina. In Virginia, for example, between July 18 and July 23, 1862, General John Pope issued four general orders providing that the Union army would as far as possible subsist upon the country, i.e., steal food from the civilians. All villages and neighborhoods through which the Union forces marched would be placed "under contribution." Civilians living along the line of march would be punished if there were any injuries to railroads or other roads by bands of unknown guerillas. Also, Brigadier General Adolph von Steinwehr seized civilians as hostage so that they could be executed if any of his soldiers were killed by unknown persons. (One recalls the righteous indignation periodically vented at Germans for reprisals taken against civilians for guerilla actions of the "gallant resistance" in World War II.) Those refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the United States would be banished from their homes; if found at any point within the Federal lines or in the rear, they would be executed as spies. Anyone who communicated with the enemy was subject to the death penalty. As Hudson Strode points out in his marvelous biography of Jefferson Davis, a mother who sent her son a letter could be regarded as a spy.43 Pope also proceeded to arm the recently-freed slaves against the whites. General McClellan deserves this country's admiration for denouncing Pope as "an upstart braggart" and a man who mistook brutality in war for power.44

President Jefferson Davis writing to General Robert E. Lee, reacted to Pope's orders as follows:

We find ourselves driven by our enemies in their steady progress towards a practice which we abhor and which we are vainly snuggling to avoid. Some of the military authorities of the United States seem to suppose that better success will attend a savage war in which no queer is to be given and no sex to be spared. For the press we renounce the right of retaliation on the innocent and shall continue to treat the private enlisted soldiers of General Pope's arny as prisoners of war, but if, after notice to the govenment in Washington, these savage practices are continued we shall be reluctantly forced to the last resort of accepting war on the terms chosen by our foes, until the outraged voice of the common humanity forces a respect for the recognized rules of war.

You are therefore instructed to communicate to the Commander in Chief of the Armies of the United States the contents of this letter -- to the end that he may be notified of our intention not to consider any officers hereafter captured from General Pope's army as prisoners of war.45

General Lee also wrote to the United States government condemning Pope's practices and warning of the results they would lead to. While General Halleck refused to accept Lee's letter because of its insulting statements about the United States government, nevertheless Pope's orders were modified and von Steinwehr was reprimanded for the conduct of his troops.46

Like his ideological descendants, Wilson and F.DR, Lincoln did not hesitate to cooperate with antagonistic ethnic groups against his own people. Thus the armies of the North were swelled with hundreds of thousands of mercenary soldiers from Europe, lured to the United States by a circular known as "the notorious Number 19" in the South. This circular from William H. Seward offered inducement in the form of pay and bounties to enlist in the service of the North, which already enjoyed an advantage in numbers of four times the White population of the South. The circular was evasive about service in the Army. Consul General John Bigelow in Paris organized a network of immigration agencies across Europe offering free land under the Homestead Act of 1862. After the war Bigelow stated that the tremendous success of recruiting of these foreign mercenaries accounted for the "mysterious repletion of our army during the four years of war."47

Large numbers of Irish and German mercenaries arrived to assist in the suppression of the South. According to the New York Herald, almost 150,000 immigrants were estimated to have joined the army early in the war. Admiral Porter estimated that a majority of the eighty thousand seamen were aliens. Ultimately, it is estimated that between 400,000 and 500,000 mercenary tmops were enrolled in the Northem army to subjugate the South.48

Pope Pius IX wrote a personal letter to Jefferson Davis for the Confederacy to use in Ireland and in Catholic areas of Germany to stem the recruitment of such mercenary troops.49 This letter was read in Catholic churchs across Europe to discourage Union recruitment efforts.50 Without the large influx of mercenaries, the primitive and wasteful military tactics of Grant would have sickened the Northern public far sooner than it did.

Southern prisoners of war also seemed to have escaped Lincoln's much acclaimed magnanimity. The death rate of Southem prisoners in Northem prison camps was much higher than the rate of Northern prisoners in Southem P.O.W. camps. To this disparity must be added the fact that the North could not claim lack of food or medicine as a reason for the horrifying high death rate in the prisons. In fact, the North refused to permit the shipment of medicine or food to Union prisoners in Southem hands. Jefferson Davis offered to pay two or three times the market price for medicine in commodities such as cotton, tobacco or even gold for the exclusive use of Northem prisoners, to be dispensed by Northern surgeons. This offer was ignored by Lincoln. Finally, the Confederates offered to release 13,000 of the most desperate cases without an equivalent exchange by the Lincoln government. The Lincoln administration waited from August to October to collect the prisoners. After they were released, atrocity photographs of the men were circulated in the North to show how the typical prisoner in Southem hands was supposedly treated.5l

Sherman used Southem prisoners of war to clear mine fields by marching them back and forth across land outside Savannah where mines were suspected. Southern prisoners were also herded in front of Northem emplacements under Confederate artillery fire so as to force Southemers to fire on their own men. Thus in the siege of Charleston, 50 Confederate officers were placed in a holding pen in front of Fort Wagner on Morris Island, so as to expose them to the fire of Confederate batteries shelling the Northem positions. On June 23, 1864, an order was issued to this effect from the office of the Commissary-General of Prisoners in Washington, D.C.52 Once again, the idea that Lincoln was ignorant of the atrocious conditions under which Southem prisoners were held or the misuse of such prisoners is not tenable.

There is a French saying: the more things change, the more they remain the same. A book that has gotten fairly widespread distribution in the United States in the last year, called The Long Surrender, is worth reading because it shows us that we Americans are no more moral than foreign peoples. We have committed the same kind of war crimes that other people have committed. During the height of the hullabaloo raised over the Bitburg visit by Reagan, I learned of the disrespect shown to the Southem war dead in the course of the war. Among things cited by Burke Davis in The Long Surrender was the fact that after the Battle of Sharpsburg in Maryland, the Northerners announced that they would not permit anyone to accord Christian burials to the Southem soldiers of war -- they ordered the bodies to be left out to rot and to decompose. Only after the rot had gotten to the point where the public's health was being endangered were the rotted remains scooped together and buried in unmarked common ground.53

Likewise after the war -- of course, this can't be laid to Lincoln's account since he too was dead -- the North posted soldiers at military cemeteries to prevent Southem women from putting flowers on the graves of their deceased husbands, fathers, sons and brothers.54

When Richmond fell another interesting little tidbit of American history occurred. Lincoln's subordinates ordered that the Episcopal churches, in which it is the custom to pray for the leader of the country, were to pray for Abraham Lincoln in conquered areas of the South. If they refused to pray for Abraham Lincoln, Northen troops were to take the priest away from the altar, thrust him out of the church, close the church and turn the church over to Northem denominations.

Another development in the course of the war which shows something of the barbarity with which it was waged is the famous incident involving Benjamin Butler in New Orleans. General Butler was one of the most ruthless and cruel Northern generals. When he occupied New Orleans he embarked upon a course of insult and abuse toward the civilian population. There were hardly any males of military age left in New Orleans. They had all been sent off to the army, so that the women were deprived of their sons, husbands and fathers to protect them. It was apparently inconceivable to Butler that these women would not welcome their Northern conquerors under the circumstances of the war and he took umbrage at the fact that one Southem lady spat at a Northem soldier who persisted in making advances toward her. When Butler heard of this he issued his Order Number 28 which read as follows:

As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women calling themselves "ladies" of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part [it is to be noted that there were Negro troops among the occupying army] it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.55

This in essence was a "right to rape" order which he issued to his troops and he undoubtedly, given his personality, was gratified by the effect it worked upon the civilian population. I assume that he was also astonished at the outrage that it aroused around the world, because the order redounded to the great discredit of the United States. Palmerston, the British Prime Minister, wrote to Charles Francis Adams, the U.S. Minister in London the following concerning Butler's order

I will venture to say that no exanple can be found in the history of civilized nations till the publication of this order of a general guilty in cold blood of so infamous an act as deliberately to hand over the female inhabitants of a conquered city to the unbridled license of an unrestrained soldiety.55

Later he said to the English Parliament: "It is a proclamation to which I do not scruple to attach the epithet 'infamous.' Any English man must blush to think that such an act has been committed by one belonging to the Anglo-Saxon race."

Likewise the French Minister in Washington, Mercier, who was concerned because so many of the women in New Orleans were of French extraction, issued strong remonstrances from the French government. Finally, Lincoln relieved Butler of his command -- but not because of Buder's treatment of the civilians of New Orleans; not because Butler and his brother were believed to be selling supplies through the black market to the Confederates; not because Butler ordered a civilian hanged: Lincoln did not remove Butler for these reasons. It was when Butler began confiscating foreign property and all of the foreign consuls united and objected to his behavior in a unanimous letter to Washington that Butler was removed. Lincoln's reaction to the complaints was to give Butler the assignment of Commander of the Department of Virginia and North Carolina and Commissioner of Prisoner-of-War Exchanges.56 What Lincoln expected of prisoner of war exchanges can be gauged from this appointment.

When Lincoln appointed Butler he also warned Butler that if he were captured, "He [Jeff Davis] has a price on your head and will hang you for sure." This was the man Lincoln expected would be able to ensure humane treatment for prisoners of war and their exchange. The Confederate commissioner at first refused to meet with Butler. A few months after Butler's appoinanent, Grant ordered all further exchanges to cease.

Lincoln's depredations in the course of the war were not confined, however, to the South. As mentioned above Lincoln also interfered with the functioning of constitutional government in the North by arresting elected representatives of the people and holding them for military trial.57 By Executive Order he closed down hundreds of newspapers in the North which criticized the war. He abolished the writ of habeas corpus and is estimated to have held as many as 20,000 civilians in detention without trial.58 The suffering of the North, while not as horrific as that of the South, especially since the Northern civilian population at large escaped its severity, was none the less very real. The battle losses were far in excess of anyone's expectations.59

In this regard it is worth noting the famous letter to Lidia P. Bixby which Lincoln cultists love to cite. The text of the famous letter is as follows:

Dear Madam:

I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts, that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle.

I feel how weak and frivolous must be any words of mine which could attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save.

I pray our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours, to have laid so costly a sacrifice on the altar of Freedom.

Yours, sincerely and respectfully,

A Lincoln60

This letter received much publicity in the North, calculated as it was to touch the heart of any reader.

Those of us who are not Lincoln admirers may see in it a sterling example of the humbug and hypocrisy that is an inescapable part of any democracy. Lincoln's own son, Robert Todd Lincoln, was of military age and was also a resident of Massachusetts during the bloodletting of the War between the States. Unlike Mrs. Bixby's sons, however, Abraham Lincoln's son fought the war at Andover and Harvard. Only in the closing months of the War did young Robert finally see military service. His service was confined to serving on General Grant's staff where he enjoyed a bird's eye view of the war's conclusion with the rank of Captain and Assistant Adjutant General.61

But Lincoln's behavior in sheltering his son from the war at same same time he was consigning the sons of so many Northem mothers to battle contrasts sharply with the behavior of Robert E. Lee and other Southern leaders. Most of the sons of Southren leaders fought in the war. There was a famous example in one battle in which Lee was riding by an artillery unit. It was a hot day and the men had stripped themselves of their uniforms. They were blackened by the smoke from the cannons. As Lee rode by, one private, black with powder, ran out of the unit and spoke to the General. Lee said: "Well, my man, what can I do for you?" The artilleryman replied to him, "Why, General, don't you know me?" It was Robert E. ("Rob") Lee, Jr., Lee's son and namesake in the thick of battle. Another of Lee's sons, William Fitzhugh Lee, would be captured about the middle of the war, and Custis Lee would later be taken prisoner by the North in the closing days of the war.62

Fmally, most Americans accept as an article of faith that had Lincoln lived he would have conducted a policy of magnanimity toward the South during Reconstruction. In view of the methods by which he provoked the war and the methods by which he waged the war, such is mere supposition. There are various statements of Lincoln's that are cited (that he was going to treat them as if they had never left, and all of that) but since Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth, not too much credit can be laid to such remarks.

For example, Lincoln indicated that he was in favor of Negro suffrage in Louisiana, which would have placed the white Louisianans in a politically untenable position. He was upset when the Unionist-dominated legislature of the Reconstruction government did not grant suffrage to Negroes and he expressed a desire that Negro suffrage be granted.63 Indeed, after Lincoln's last cabinet meeting Attomey General Joshua Speed, an advocate of Negro suffrage, told Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase that Lincoln "never seemed so near our views."64 Of course, after Lincoln's assassination, Negroes were given the right to vote and they were manipulated by Northem carpetbaggers into passing harsh laws against the formerly rebellious, white, Southem population.

Lincoln and His Place in American History What then is the proper place of Abraham Lincoln in American history and why they should we as Revisionists question Abraham Lincoln?

The proper place of Abraham Lincoln in American history is as part of the liberal trinity of F.D.R., Wilson and Lincoln. He had the same values they had. He advanced the country toward unlimited government as they did. He was willing to use foreigners and minority groups against his own people. He was willing to have a selective "democratic" conscience when it came to subjects like deportations. He properly ought to be considered as a major liberal force, as someone who moved the country toward the left and toward the situation which exists today. He successfully defeated the South. The labors of the South for its freedom were all in vain. Seventy-five percent of the white male population of military age served in the Southen armies but could not overcome the disparity in numbers of the North's mercenanes.65 The cherished dream of Southern independence was not to be. Lincoln should be seen as an example of the amazing inability of Americans to assess their history objectively because while some things may be little known, certainly everyone has heard of General Sherman's March to the Sea. We cannot exonerate Abraham Lincoln from this atrocity. Yet somehow the question is never even asked by Americans-if

Lincoln was so wonderful and magnanimous and kind and good, why did the March to the Sea take place?

The Lincoln myth exemplifies the lack of historical sense and objectivity of Americanst the ability to accept "official" history even in the face of obvious facts.

Notes See, for example, Eric Foner, "Lincoln, Bradford and the Conservatives," The New York Times, February 13, 1981. Burke Davis, The Long Surrender (New York Random House, 1985), pp. 108-109, 203. Dwight G. Anderson, Abraham Linodn. The Question for Immortality (New Yorlc: Alfred A. Knopf, 1982), p. 66. Ward Hill Lamon, one of Lincoln's closest friends, wrote: "He perceived no reason for changing his convictions, but he did perceive many good and cogent reasons for not making them public." Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln, the Man (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1931), pp. 40 3; Robert W. Johansen, Stephen A. Douglas (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 565. Reinhard H. Luthin, The Real Abraham Lincoln (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall 1960), p. 178. David L. Hoggan, The Myth of the New History (Torrance, Califorma: Institute for Historical Review, 1985), p. 72 et. seq. Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), Volume 1, p. 367. Sangamon Edition (referred herein as "SE.") Sandburg, VoL L p. 369 SE. Masters, pp. 97-8. Johansal, p. 53. Masers, p. 81. Masters p. 82. Dee Alexander Brown, Hear the Lonesome Whistle Blow: Railroads in the West (New Yorlc: Holt, Rinehart & Winstom 1977), pp. 10-12. This book also details the Republicans' use of the rsih~oads as a political tool and weapon during and aftert he between the States. Sandburg, Vol. 2, pp. 103-04 SE. Johansen, see general chapters XXIX and XXX. Sandburg, Vol. 2, p. 159 SE. Carl Sandburg, Reader's Digest Illustrated Edition Abraham Lincoln -- The Prairie Years and the War Years (Pleasantville, New York The Reader's Digest Association, 1970), p. 136. ("RD") Luthin, p. 238. It is worth pointing out that Lincoln got the same percentage of the vote as Fremont received in 1856 while the combined Douglas-Breckentidge slates increased the Democratic popular vote. This does not include Bell, who got nearly one third of Lincoln's popular vote total. The Douglas-Breckenridge vote increased from 45% (1.8 million) to 47% (2.2 million). Luthin's chapter 16 outlines this nicely. Luthin, p. 242. loc. cit. loc. cit. op. cit., p. 243. loc. cit. Lincoln "pondered over patronage" while the Union dissolved. Alexander Hamilton Stephens, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results (New York: National Publishing Company, 1868), Volume II, p. 266. Sandburg, Vol. 3, p. 73 SE; Masters, p. 380. Johannsen, p. 850. Hudson Strode, Jefferson Davis, Confederate President (New York Harcourt, Brace & World, 1959), p. 8. C. R. Vaughan, D.D., Editor, Discussions by Robert Dabney, DD., LL.D., Volume IV (Hamsburg, Virginia Sprinkle Publications, 1979), pp. 87-100, quoting the memoirs of Colonel John B. Baldwm. a member of the Virginia Peace Commission. Vaughan, p. 94. M.E. Bradford, Remembering Who We Are: Observations of a Southern Conservative (Athens, Georgia The University of Georgia Press 1985), p. 147. Lincoln raised the tariff from 18.84% to 47.56%. The tariff stayed above 40% in all but two years from Lincoln's administraion to the election of Woodrow Wilson. The policy amounted to a brutally effective policy of treating the South as a colonial possession transferring wealth from the South to the Northern plutocrats. Ellis Gibbs Arnall, The Shore Dimly Seen (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania J B. Lippincott Company, 1946), pp. 165-185. Ellis Amall was Governor of Georgia from 1943 to 1947. A staunch New Deal Democrat, he was one of the most liberal governors ever elected in this history of the State. An example of what Wilmot Roblertson styled an "old believer" liberal, he also appears to be that rarest of all creatures -an honest Southern liberal whose belief in multi-racialism does not include the usual hatred for his own people and region The chapter of the book referred to in this footnote is a concise and convinang summary of the Northem exploitation of its Southem colony after the War for Southern Induce. Strode, Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, pp. 28-31; John Shipley Tilley, The Coming of the Glory (New York Stratford Houses 1949), pp. 58-9. See also Masters, pp. 390-96. What kind of war did Lincoln expect? The largest single field army in the Mexican War was 11,000. After calling out the 75,000 militia, Lincoln on May 3, 1861 authorized enlistment of 82,000 additional soldiers. On July 4, 1861 he asked for 400,000 volunteers. The First Battle of Manassas was not fought until July 21, 1861. What did Lincoln plan to do with over half a million troops? Ludwell H. Johnson, Division and Reunion: America 1848-77 (New York. John Wiley & Sons, 1978), p. 89. Bradford, pp. 149-150; Masters pp. 422-23. The mayor of Washington, D.C., Congressman Vallandigham of Ohio and a large portion of the Maryland legislature were jailed. Davis, pp. 69-70. It is worth noting that Dr. Goebbels did not overlook the Northern campaign techniques. German propaganda in the Second World War cited Union conduct as an example of what Europe could expect if the Americans were to begin their crusading on a broad scale. Evidently the Nazis felt the Lincoln government would be a model for the Roosevelt govermnent. An example of this propaganda is printed in the English language version of Signal. Joseph T. Derry, AM., edited by General Clements A. Evans, Georgia: Confederate Military History (Secaucus, New Jersey: The Blue and Gray Press), Volume IV, p. 360. Derry, pp. 360-69; Masters, pp. 455-62. See also FJ.P. Veale, The Veale File, Volume 1: Advance to Barbarisrn (Torrance, California Institute for Historical Review, 1979), p. 122: "Sherman only executed the most dramatic and devastating example of the strategy that was laid down by President Lincoln himself... That Lincoln determined the basic lines of Northern military strategy has been well established in such books as Collin R. Ballard's The Military Genius of Abraham Lincoln and T. Harry Williarns' Lincoln and His Generals. Grant only efficiently applied Lincoln's military policy in the field..." Atlanta Journal Constitution, Atlanta Weekly Magazine, April 3, 1983, p.22. ' Strode, Jefferson Davis, Confederate President, p. 125. Sandburg, Vol. 4, p. 176. The New York Times comment on this incident is revealing as well: "The order, to be sure, was promptly set aside by the President but the affront to the Jews conveyed by its issue was not so easily effaced. A committee of Jews took it upon themselves to thank [emphasis in original] President Lincoln at Washington for so promptly annulling the odious order. Against the conduct of this committee the bulk of Jews vehemently protest. They say that they have no thanks for an act of simple and imperative justice -- but grounds for deep and just complaint against the Govemment, that General Grant has not been dismissed from the service." Strode, pp. 289-90. op. cit., p. 290. op. cit., pp. 290-91. op. cit., p. 291. op. cit., p. 500. op. cit., pp. 500-501. op. cit., p. 501. There is an Irish song of the era that goes: "Hey, boys, do take my advice, "To America I'd have you not to be coming, "For there's nothin' here but war, "Where the murderin' cannon roar, "And I wish I was back in dea

weisbrot

2004-04-21 18:24 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Weisbrot - in your opinion, did the South act in any way - er - hastily or perhaps even imprudently in the course of the unfortunate events of 1860/61?

No. Jefferson and Hamilton had it out over many of the same issues that came to a head with secession. Also, google J.D.B. DeBow.

Also, why is use of the word "plutocrat" to describe some of the fabulously wealthy denizens of the CSA ruling class inappropriate?[/QUOTE]

It is misleading to characterize the planting classes of the South as being the southern equivalent of Boston and New York plutocrats and shylocks.

Have you ever answered to the name "Eric Foner", by chance?

Walter Yannis

2004-04-23 15:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Originally Posted by Walter Yannis Weisbrot - in your opinion, did the South act in any way - er - hastily or perhaps even imprudently in the course of the unfortunate events of 1860/61? [/QUOTE]

No. Jefferson and Hamilton had it out over many of the same issues that came to a head with secession. Also, google J.D.B. DeBow. [/QUOTE]

Your position is flatly contradicted by the subsequent events, Weisbrot. The South was crushed, the best young men killed or wounded, its economy destroyed, its way of life blown to bits. And for their pains they gained absolutely nothing. Nothing, Weisbrot.

Their actions consitute the very defintion of hubris, self-delusion, and foolhardiness. There was no prudence there at all.

You're avoiding an obvious fact because you find it too painful to accept, or at least so it would appear.

The South had nothing to do with CWI? They really had the situation sized up right and soberly? Jeff Davis had a good, firm grip on the realities of the day? Each Confederate soldier was going to take out 10 Yanks? They were going to win the war like a Sunday picnic? Is that it?

But then what happened? Reality sort of presses in, doesn't it?

I mean, DOESN'T IT?

Please forgive my shouting.

Clearly, your position ignores the fact that the South lost the war, and utterly.

I understand your sentimental attachments to the South (I have similar feelings for my own ancestors' part in the GAR), and I certainly empathize with them, for there was indeed much to admire in the old South. But your position would seem to take flight from reality - the same process that got us into the mess in the first instance.

Please reconsider your total absolution of the Southern ruling class from all blame in the Great Train Wreck.

[QUOTE]It is misleading to characterize the planting classes of the South as being the southern equivalent of Boston and New York plutocrats and shylocks.[/QUOTE]

Why is that, given the similiarities in wealth, their willingness to exploit the poor, their disdain for the working classes (I recall something about "greasy mechanics for Abe Lincoln), and their common dreams of empire?

I see little difference between the two. One grew the cotton by black slave labor that by its nature opressed working whites, while the other shipped it to Manchester. Both sneered at the poor.

Why do you idealize such men so?

[QUOTE]Have you ever answered to the name "Eric Foner", by chance?[/QUOTE]

No, please advise who was Eric Foner?

Regards,

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-24 03:07 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Your position is flatly contradicted by the subsequent events, Weisbrot. The South was crushed, the best young men killed or wounded, its economy destroyed, its way of life blown to bits. And for their pains they gained absolutely nothing. Nothing, Weisbrot.

Their actions consitute the very defintion of hubris, self-delusion, and foolhardiness. There was no prudence there at all.

You're avoiding an obvious fact because you find it too painful to accept, or at least so it would appear.

But then what happened? Reality sort of presses in, doesn't it?

I mean, DOESN'T IT?

Please forgive my shouting.

Not a problem. Relax. You're dead wrong, and this stresses you out. Until Gettysburg, the South was very near to winning the war outright. It was a calculated risk for Lee, Davis and others to strategize that the huge opposition to Lincoln and the barbaric campaigns he planned- along with widespread Northern acknowledgement that the South was within Constitutional bounds in declaring secession- would prevail in the North. Unfortunately, the monster Lincoln found ways to circumvent these preferences of his own electorate by using the tyrannical methods you celebrate- the very tactics that have resulted in the centralized Federal monster we suffer today.

Clearly, your position ignores the fact that the South lost the war, and utterly.

Clearly, you ignore that Lincoln's actions started the precipitous slide for this nation that culminated in the reforms of 1965 and that will eventually endanger all white Christian men in this land. Additionally, your sentimental attachments to Lincoln blind you to your alignment with nearly every neoconservative that has walked the earth since the character asassination of Bradford. You stroll in some odd company, Mr. Yannis. I'll note that in all of your sentimental maunderings, you've yet to post any supportive essays in favor of your position. To do so would reveal your handholding with the Goldbergs and Foners, as opposed to marching alongside the Garrets and Weavers.

No, please advise who was Eric Foner?

Your ideological father.

Walter Yannis

2004-04-24 14:56 | User Profile

I did some googling, and I'll try to read Foner. I think I read this in university ages ago. Don't recall what, but I knew the name was familiar.

I also found the [URL=http://partners.nytimes.com/books/first/g/gallagher-confederate.html]quote [/URL] I was looking for from Shelby Foote:

[QUOTE]More often than their academic counterparts, popular writers have veered toward a romantic conclusion that the Confederacy fought gallantly against hopeless odds. In the pictorial history of the Civil War that accompanied Ken Burns's film documentary, for example, Shelby Foote pronounced the Confederate bid for independence doomed from the start. "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back," observed Foote. If the Confederacy ever had come close to winning on the battlefield, "the North simply would have brought that other arm out from behind its back. [B]I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war." [/B] Foote also claimed that white southerners knew their cause was hopeless well before the end of the conflict. Heavy casualties, shortages of goods behind the lines, and loss of faith in European recognition promoted a "realization that defeat was foreordained." As so many historians over the years have done, Foote turned to South Carolina diarist Mary Chesnut for a summary quotation to clinch his points: "[B]It's like a Greek tragedy, where you know what the outcome is bound to be," wrote Chesnut. "We're living a Greek tragedy." [/B] [/QUOTE]

I think that our eminent historian is right on that point. The South never had a chance, and as Mary Chestnut makes clear, this was obvious to any sober observer from the very beginning.

It really was Greek tradedy. We even had a Ulysses playing one of the leading roles.

We must shed our delusional thinking, Weisbrot, and think with only our heads and not with our hearts. We must sever the two completely, and not allow our feelings to cloud our cold analysis of any situation, but especially in grave matters such as war.

To be sure, that's far easier said than done, but as Shelby Foote seems to indicate above, the South failed utterly in that first task, and as I said previously the rest is history.

Give it up, friend. The South lost, and clearly that cause was lost not at Appomatax, but rather at Sumter.

Warmest regards,

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-26 03:57 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]

It really was Greek tradedy. We even had a Ulysses playing one of the leading roles.

Ahhhh. Bullsh*t. Grant was willing to do what Lincoln directed, backed by the military might that was built on stolen treasure. Treasure stolen by the North from the South, via the tariff policies that were directly responsible for starting the war. Your worship of tyrants and their thugs is tiresome, Walter.

We must shed our delusional thinking, Weisbrot, and think with only our heads and not with our hearts. We must sever the two completely, and not allow our feelings to cloud our cold analysis of any situation, but especially in grave matters such as war. [/QUOTE]

If that's the case, then you should give up your effort to turn this into a discussion over whether the South's response to Northern aggression was some romantic lost cause. And you should stop swooning over Lincoln and admit that he is directly responsible for much of the ruination this nation now faces.

I'll state again that your failure to cite any positions that support your own re: Lincoln speaks volumes. To tie yourself to any such Lincoln worship would be to reveal the neoconservative ideology upon which it is based.

Walter Yannis

2004-04-26 05:28 | User Profile

I'll note that in all of your sentimental maunderings, you've yet to post any supportive essays in favor of your position. To do so would reveal your handholding with the Goldbergs and Foners, as opposed to marching alongside the Garrets and Weavers.

I cited to Shelby Foote above - is he a neocon?

Also, what's this about not supporting my position with "essays"?

Why do I need them, when I have the great rhetorician himself?

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-26 14:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]I cited to Shelby Foote above...

...in a comment that was not germane to the topic of Lincoln.

Also, what's this about not supporting my position with "essays"?

Why do I need them, when I have the great rhetorician himself?
[/QUOTE]

That's entirely illogical and weak. Do you feel the same about Adolph Hitler, that great rhetorician you so admire? Since when do paleoconservatives allow any historical figures to write their own pantheon, and prohibit criticism? Basing an evaluation of Lincoln on his overblown rhetoric (see Gettysburg Address) as opposed to an objective study of the context, his agenda and the result of his actions is pointless and amounts to idol worship.

Your support of Lincoln's actions is based on thin air, aside from the scribblings of the leading neoconservatives who prop up the Lincoln legend as a way of bringing credibility to their own movement.

Walter Yannis

2004-04-26 15:27 | User Profile

[QUOTE][QUOTE=weisbrot]...in a comment that was not germane to the topic of Lincoln.[/QUOTE]

It was completely germane to the issue of whether the South acted foolishly or not, which was the topic under discussion.

[QUOTE]That's entirely illogical and weak. Do you feel the same about Adolph Hitler, that great rhetorician you so admire? [/QUOTE]

What on Earth are you talking about?

[QUOTE]Since when do paleoconservatives allow any historical figures to write their own pantheon, and prohibit criticism? Basing an evaluation of Lincoln on his overblown rhetoric (see Gettysburg Address) as opposed to an objective study of the context, his agenda and the result of his actions is pointless and amounts to idol worship.[/QUOTE]

Lincoln didn't write peans to himself (the word I think you meant, not "pantheon" which would make no sense in that context), and none were offerred. I refer to his astonishing legal analysis of the situation at the time, as set forth in his various speeches and published debates with Douglas. I own a paperback version of these, which I assume you've read and which I review from time to time. His logic is unassailable, his rhetoric beyond compare.

The greatness of any literary work is in its staying power, its ability to speak to successive generations anew. But Lincoln is still read and quoted widely. By this measure, then, Lincoln's best speeches are indeed great, and I think rather clearly will enter the canon of monuments of the English language. Surely mere mortals like us should show a bit more respect for our literary betters.

[QUOTE]Your support of Lincoln's actions is based on thin air, aside from the scribblings of the leading neoconservatives who prop up the Lincoln legend as a way of bringing credibility to their own movement.[/QUOTE]

Quite to the contrary, my admiration of Lincoln is based on his actions and his writings, as discussed above. My point is why consider anybody's "scribblings" when we have it straight from the original genius himself? I've read a few histories of the Civil War, and I guess most of the important original documents. Or is it the case that legimitate reference can be made only derivitive narratives?

The South's cause was deeply flawed. The Southern cause was based on weak legal foundations (that Lincoln thoroughly demolished). It was motivated by greed and wild dreams of a greater slave empire on the territories the Union conquered, and fanned into consuming flame by an underestimation of the industrial prowess and moral determination of the North that can only be termed delusional.

Given both the terrible consequences of that war and their foreseeability (my point with the Shelby Foote quote), the moral culpability of the Southern aristocrats who took the fatal decision to secede is indeed palpable.

While I've taken pains to point up the reciprocal failings on the part of the North (their actions too involved moral failure), you seem unwilling to engage in a similar self-criticism of the actions of your ancestors.

There can be little hope of mutual understanding when my interlocutor claims absolute right for his position. But such is nearly a patent absurdity - this is a world of shadows and fog, Weisbrot. Very rarely if ever does one side have a monopoly on the right - but that would appear to be exactly the claim you are making (please correct me if I'm wrong).

As I've shown above, such a claim is simply indefensible.

Regards,

Walter

edward gibbon

2004-04-26 17:10 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]... I cited to Shelby Foote above - is he a neocon? Walter[/QUOTE]Mr. Foote through his mother now claims to be Jewish.

Petr

2004-04-26 17:17 | User Profile

Jewhoo entry on "Shelby Foote"

"[COLOR=Blue]Shelby Foote - Born, 1916. [/COLOR] [COLOR=Red]Quite a surprise here. Foote is a famous historian of the American Civil War who became well-known with his commentary on Ken Burns' history of the Civil War on PBS. A Mississippi native, his mother was Jewish, father, not. Adopted Christianity as a young man, but he says "it did not take". Foote, it is interesting to note, first made his name as a historical novelist. He is a self-trained historian and does not have a graduate degree in history. Correction September 2002--Foote is 'one quarter' Jewish--- From an interview: TAE: Your maternal grandfather was a Viennese Jew. Did you ever feel Jewish at all? FOOTE: I went to the synagogue as a boy. I went to Saturday school, so that I know the Shema Y’Israel and so on. But no, I never felt Jewish. And I always knew the disadvantages of being Jewish. I’m three-quarters Episcopalian, and it seemed to me I was going to have a much easier time in life being an Episcopalian than I would as a Jew. TAE: Have you ever been tempted by the religious impulse? FOOTE: No. That’s left out of me. I have very little concern with life after death. Thomas Hardy said “I’ve been looking for God for 50 years and if he was there, I would have found him.” (As a sidenote: Most people don't know that there was a vibrant Jewish community in the Delta area of Mississippi that began before the Civil War, grew larger with the waves of Jewish immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and has faded in the last 50 years. It was never a large community, but it did add a touch of exoticism to a region that was almost all WASP (with a sprinkling of white Catholics) or African-American---and very segregated by race and class. Mississippi Jews were usually small town merchants or professionals. They existed in a world a little outside the firm race and the class lines. However, the community has faded as economic conditions changed and huge chain stores replaced small town downtowns and the huge agricultural population declined with the mechanization of cotton production. Young Jewish people starting leaving the area around 1950 for better economic opportunites and to be able to find Jewish marriage partners in larger urban areas)."[/COLOR]

[url]http://www.jewhoo.com/display_entries.asp?p_category_id=&p_parent_id=[/url]

Petr

Texas Dissident

2004-04-26 17:56 | User Profile

Don't worry too much, weisbrot. The historical lies we were taught are easily corrected with the instruction we give to each of our children. Proud to say that at the mention of Abraham Lincoln, my own daughter will emphatically proclaim "he was the worst president in history."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

We change the culture one family at a time and our most important work is surely done within our own homes.

weisbrot

2004-04-26 18:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]It was completely germane to the issue of whether the South acted foolishly or not, which was the topic under discussion.

Spoken like a true lawyer. Your first comment in this thread, and all of my replies, have centered on Lincoln and not whether "the South acted foolishly". These comments are found just before you vowed twice not to comment again, and well before your emotional wailings about how the South continues to insist on "refighting" the "Civil War".

Lincoln didn't write peans to himself (the word I think you meant, not "pantheon" which would make no sense in that context), and none were offerred. I refer to his astonishing legal analysis of the situation at the time, as set forth in his various speeches and published debates with Douglas. I own a paperback version of these, which I assume you've read and which I review from time to time. His logic is unassailable, his rhetoric beyond compare.

As you know, I said that Lincoln should not be the one to create his own pantheon, meaning in this sense a memorial to a hero. This is what is done when you point only to Lincoln's supposed skills as a logistician or writer. The Gettysburg Address is the most quoted, most crap-loaded piece of garbage ever written or spoken by any U.S. politician. But feel free to fall down blubbering with emotion every time you hear that overwrought paen to neoconservatism's roots- it's a monumental swindle, as characterized by many historians, and is seen as just one more instance of Lincoln yet again subverting the Constitution. And that's just the neoconservative historians who admire Lincoln. His entire Presidency is an exercise in subverting the Constitution, and it resulted in the Fourteenth Amendment and the death of this nation.

Quite to the contrary, my admiration of Lincoln is based on his actions and his writings, as discussed above.

As is the admiration of the neoconservatives and Straussian kin you refuse to quote.

There can be little hope of mutual understanding when my interlocutor claims absolute right for his position. But such is nearly a patent absurdity - this is a world of shadows and fog...

This is sophistry- especially after you make the claim that

His logic is unassailable, his rhetoric beyond compare.

Are you through contradicting yourself yet, Walter?

weisbrot

2004-04-26 18:31 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Don't worry too much, weisbrot. The historical lies we were taught are easily corrected with the instruction we give to each of our children. Proud to say that at the mention of Abraham Lincoln, my own daughter will emphatically proclaim "he was the worst president in history."

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

We change the culture one family at a time and our most important work is surely done within our own homes.[/QUOTE]

Good for you and your daughter. You're absolutely right about this.

My kids, being younger, take a different approach. They proudly hold up nickels and point to Jefferson, and when finding a penny they always state, "There's mean ol' President Lincoln." We've taken steps to make sure they know not to get into a jam with misguided church instructors or teachers, but like yours their radar for agenda-ridden historical lies is already turned on high.

Walter Yannis

2004-04-26 19:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE][weisbrot]Spoken like a true lawyer. Your first comment in this thread, and all of my replies, have centered on Lincoln and not whether "the South acted foolishly". These comments are found just before you vowed twice not to comment again, and well before your emotional wailings about how the South continues to insist on "refighting" the "Civil War".[/QUOTE]

Weisbrot, I'm not the one exhibiting great emotion here. We were indeed talking about Lincoln, but we also got into whether and to what extent the South could reasonably have expected success, viewed prospectively. At least, that's what I thought we were talking about. The comment was meant in that context.

[QUOTE]As you know, I said that Lincoln should not be the one to create his own pantheon, meaning in this sense a memorial to a hero. [/QUOTE] T

Well, okay, but I understand a pantheon to be a sort of canonical roster of the gods, and I don't see how Lincoln is creating such a list by virtue of his writings. I take it that you meant that he somehow attempted to deify himself in his writings, but I don't see why you'd say that, and I can only conclude that I'm missing your point. Please explain.

[QUOTE]This is what is done when you point only to Lincoln's supposed skills as a logistician or writer.[/QUOTE]

I'm probably not following your dialect again. As far as I know, a "logistician" is one who is skilled in the art of logistics - organizing things, especially in regard to their supply and transport. I take it that you meant "logician", meaning one who practices the discipline of formal logic. Please correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, I could well be missing the point).

If I understand your point correctly, then, you seem to be saying that pointing to Lincoln's writings instead of some other scholarly text about Lincoln is unacceptable, because it works a sort of implied deification of Lincoln. Is that correct?

But if that's indeed your argument, I think that's clearly not so, inasmuch as none of it goes to the truth or falsity of Lincoln's arguments. Take Lincoln the man out of it for a moment, and focus on his arguments. My position is that his arguments were solid and nearly watertight as a matter of law and logic, while of course recognizing that there were ambiguities in the Constitutional text itself as to a state's right to secede and that reasonable minds really could disagree on that point. My desire is to focus on the arguments Lincoln made, of course with due regard to the context in which they were made.

Acknowlding that much, I also observe that his writings are a monument to English forensics, and that they evince a brilliant and finely honed legal mind. Now, you may disagree with that assessment, and that's fine, although I haven't noted any arguments made in support of such a position, unless one deems name calling argument. Anyway, yy admiration for Lincoln grows out of my assessment of his achievements and my esthetic evalution of his better work; it does not precede that process.

[QUOTE]The Gettysburg Address is the most quoted, most crap-loaded piece of garbage ever written or spoken by any U.S. politician. [/QUOTE]

You say this, but accuse me of this:

[QUOTE]But feel free to fall down blubbering with emotion every time you hear that overwrought paen to neoconservatism's roots- it's a monumental swindle, as characterized by many historians, and is seen as just one more instance of Lincoln yet again subverting the Constitution. [/QUOTE]

Again, I'm not the one exhibiting the emotion here, at least I don't think I am.

[QUOTE]And that's just the neoconservative historians who admire Lincoln. His entire Presidency is an exercise in subverting the Constitution, and it resulted in the Fourteenth Amendment and the death of this nation. As is the admiration of the neoconservatives and Straussian kin you refuse to quote.[/QUOTE]

Your argument would appear to presume that Lincoln's admirers are limited to "neoconservatives." But clearly that isn't so. Good Heavens, Weisbrot, Lincoln had many admirers well before there even were any neoconservatives. Said admirers include PJB, who is also far from perfect, but I don't think anybody here would accuse him of the sin of neoconservatism (would they?)

You also find a contradiction in my admiration for Lincoln's mind and rhetorical ability with any finding of moral culpability on his part. But clearly, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. After all, no man is perfect, even (especially?) the great men of history, like Abraham Lincoln. All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God, as it were. Had Shakespeare been a murderer (perish the thought), his achievements as a playwrite would be no less notable. Similarly, Lincoln did many questionable things, clearly that is so. But so did Cromwell, as I alluded to above. The fact that Cromwell killed 4,000 defenseless people in Drogheda, Ireland, was bad, but it doesn't destroy my admiration for his many achievements (including our own American brand of English freedom), and I think rightly so. This is the point I'm trying to make about Lincoln. He must be viewed in the greater context within which his more brutal actions took place. There is no contradiction between admiring Lincoln for his good points while fully acknowledging his failings.

You make an apparently uncontextual reference to Adolf Hitler, and while I don't admire much about Hitler, I think that even the devil gets his due when the facts so indicate.

I repeat that you are the one who appears unwilling to acknowledge the greatness of Lincoln, even as I certainly acknowledge the greatness of Lee.

Thanks to others for pointing out the Kosher roots of Shelby Foote, I was not aware of that (it's called crypsis), but it doesn't go to the truth or falsity of his assertion that the South never had a chance in the war (which it didn't).

Of course, if my right honorable friend Weisbrot were a good trial lawyer, he'd hoist me on my own petard as to the foreseeablity of the terrible consequences of Southern seccession by quoting directly from Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

[QUOTE]Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. [/QUOTE]

That would have been a slam-dunk.

Regards,

Walter

weisbrot

2004-04-30 03:13 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Weisbrot, I'm not the one exhibiting great emotion here. We were indeed talking about Lincoln, but we also got into whether and to what extent the South could reasonably have expected success, viewed prospectively. At least, that's what I thought we were talking about. [/QUOTE]

Once again, Lawyer Walter, no. We were talking about Lincoln and his legacy.

I guess I'm just as nostalgic for Lincoln as you are for the Confederacy.

I'm not necessarily nostalgic for the Confederacy, but your ongoing and quite public emotional attachment to the father-figure Lincoln is noted.

It really was Greek tradedy. We even had a Ulysses playing one of the leading roles.

If you say so, Walter. Sounds sort of over-the-top emotional to me.

The South had nothing to do with CWI? They really had the situation sized up right and soberly? Jeff Davis had a good, firm grip on the realities of the day? Each Confederate soldier was going to take out 10 Yanks? They were going to win the war like a Sunday picnic? Is that it?

But then what happened? Reality sort of presses in, doesn't it?

I mean, DOESN'T IT?

Please forgive my shouting.

Gee. Could be this is some sort of emotional exhibition. Of course I forgive you. But what of the neocons counting on you to make a respectable, representative showing?

I guess my views on this are clear enough. I'm basically a Lincolnite. I promised to say no more about this above, so I'll shut up and give you and mwdallas the last word.

So you said. Last month. Guess the emotions got the best of you. I can only imagine the applause from the Podhoretz's, Kristol's and other neocons in your mileu who must be congratulating you on your commitment to agenda over personal integrity.

I've yet to see you cite any source other than Walter Yannis to support a positive view of Lincoln and his actions in the War Between the States. To do so would place you squarely in the camp of the neoconservatives who ruined Bradford, as you well know. If you have no way of supporting your claims for Lincoln other than your own flawed misinterpretations I suggest you might take yourself up on your month-old vow to withdraw.