← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Texas Dissident
Thread ID: 5099 | Posts: 23 | Started: 2003-02-19
2003-02-19 10:37 | User Profile
[url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein10.html]Letter to a Middle-Aged Neocon[/url]
by Marcus Epstein
In her book Slander, Ann Coulter tries to demonstrate the liberal bias in the publishing industry by complaining that Dinesh Dââ¬â¢Souza received a mere 150,000-dollar advance on his latest book, Letters to a Young Conservative. Regardless of whether or not Coulter is right about the bias, she could not have chosen a worse book to demonstrate her point.
Letters to a Young Conservative is a collection of 31 letters to an imaginary conservative student named Chris. Dââ¬â¢Souza enlightens Chris on what conservatives should think about public policy, philosophy, and history.
Although he takes a genuinely conservative stand on some issues, he usually defends them with clichés like "more guns mean less crime" or on leftist terms. For example, while he complains about the "self-esteem hoax," his principle complaint about affirmative action is that it "increases doubts of black capacity." On many other issues he simply takes liberal or irrational positions.
One letter implores Chris to avoid the "libertarian temptation." He explains that libertarians believe that freedom is the greatest end, if not the only end, and that for the libertarian philosophy to work, one must believe that "human nature is so good that it is virtually flawless." Dââ¬â¢Souza claims that a pure libertarian would have no problem if everyone in America would become a pornographer. Given that the libertarians seem to be totally amoral and on the side of the Left in what is the "root" difference between liberals and conservatives (their view of human nature), one wonders why a "vast programmatic agreement" would exist between libertarians and conservatives.
The reason is because Dââ¬â¢Souza greatly misinterprets libertarianism. As Lord Acton said, liberty is the highest political end, not the meaning of life. As Dââ¬â¢Souza acknowledges, libertarianism is only a political philosophy, not a way to view the world. Therefore, there is nothing inherent in libertarian philosophy to suggest that libertarians should be culturally libertine.
In another letter, Dââ¬â¢Souza accuses Gore Vidal of being anti-American because he questions the benevolence of American foreign policy. One of Vidalââ¬â¢s latest books is called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, but in Dââ¬â¢Souzaââ¬â¢s case, it could be called Perpetual War for the Perpetual Lesser Evil. According to the lesser evil doctrine, which is our "central principle of foreign policy," America "is always justified in supporting a bad regime to overthrow a regime that is even worse," regardless of whether the worse regime was installed by America in the first place.
Dââ¬â¢Souza tells us we must "give bayonets a chance" and impose democracy across the world. He celebrates the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan and the firebombing of German civilians, because it gave them democracy. And he has the gall to accuse liberals of lacking the "practical moral reasoning that foreign policy requires."
Dââ¬â¢Souza isnââ¬â¢t much better when it comes to immigration. He makes a few tired claims that immigrants are good for the economy because they do the jobs Americans wonââ¬â¢t. However, he refuses to address the burden they disproportionately add to the welfare state. He simply says to get rid of the welfare. Similarly, he rejects the cultural argument against immigration, by claiming that most of the problems with assimilation are due to white liberals. This may be partially true, but given that we are not likely to get rid of multiculturalism or the welfare state anytime soon, why would Dââ¬â¢Souza want more immigration in the meantime?
Perhaps the worst letter is the one where Chris asks "Was Lincoln a Bad Guy?" Chris was shocked to see conservatives criticize Lincoln. "Wasnââ¬â¢t he a Republican?" he naively asks. Dââ¬â¢Souza takes this as an opportunity to address the attacks made upon Lincoln by those on the Right and Left. Dââ¬â¢Souza creates a straw man who says that the war wasnââ¬â¢t over slavery, and so Lincoln was wrong to stop secession. To prove these people wrong, he simply gives a few quotes by Alexander Stephens and John C. Calhoun that defended slavery. This is beside the point. Even if slavery was the reason why the South seceded (as versus mainly over the tariff), it clearly was not the reason why the North tried to stop them. Lincoln said time after time that the war was to preserve the union and not to end slavery. So the issue is whether or not the South had a right to secede. Dââ¬â¢Souzaââ¬â¢s only arguments against secession is that it is impossible for a constitutional democracy to function if states could secede, and that no party can unilaterally withdraw out of a contract. If this were true, a battered wife would not be allowed to leave her abusive husband unless he gave his consent.
Dââ¬â¢Souza refuses to look at Lincoln with any sort of historic perspective. His straw man accuses Lincoln of creating the modern welfare state, something that no prominent Lincoln critic has argued. However, many have argued the political centralization that took place under Lincolnââ¬â¢s presidency made the New Deal and Great Society possible. Similarly, rather than admit that Lincolnââ¬â¢s politically incorrect views on race "were a product of his time," he tries to pretend that clearly racist statements by Lincoln were somehow anti-racist.
Dââ¬â¢Souza outdoes himself in a number of other ways. He praises Bill Clinton for his commitment to NAFTA and the WTO. He tells the Republicans to play down social issues to appeal to rich white yuppies, and he celebrates the ouster of Augusto Pinochet.
Perhaps I am being too harsh on Dââ¬â¢Souza. I assumed that as a young conservative, I was part of the bookââ¬â¢s target audience, but if this is what passes for conservatism these days, I am definitely no conservative.
*February 19, 2003
Marcus Epstein [send him mail] is an undergraduate at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, where he is president of the college libertarians and editor of the conservative newspaper, The Remnant. A selection of his articles can be seen here.
Copyright é 2003 LewRockwell.com*
2003-02-19 12:04 | User Profile
**Dinesh Dââ¬â¢Souza received a mere 150,000-dollar advance on his latest book, Letters to a Young Conservative. Letters to a Young Conservative is a collection of 31 letters to an imaginary conservative student named Chris. **
Anybody still unsure why mainstream "conservatism" is now a cesspool of mediocre writers and second-rate thinkers?
150 large!! Oops....pardon me...make that "only" 150 large - for a book any competent essay-padder could've cranked out over a 3-day weekend, and full of the recycled NR/Front Page-style nostrums that even I know by heart now. Immigration good....racism bad....Lincoln a hero....Gore Vidal a bum....NAFTA swell.....Bush tuff & ruthless...Hussein ruff & toothless....yawwwn. Ol Dinesh never had to crack open so much as a thesaurus, let alone any reference works for *this * opus; the textbook example of a "book that writes itself".
Then again, Seabiscuit Annie probably pulled down seven figs for her book. Oops, I almost forgot she's "this generation's answer to Swift and Voltaire". Meanwhile, everybody worth reading is either dead or self-publishing on the Internet, and paying for the privilege besides.
2003-02-20 10:37 | User Profile
Dââ¬â¢Souza refuses to look at Lincoln with any sort of historic perspective. His straw man accuses Lincoln of creating the modern welfare state, something that no prominent Lincoln critic has argued. However, many have argued the political centralization that took place under Lincolnââ¬â¢s presidency made the New Deal and Great Society possible. Similarly, rather than admit that Lincolnââ¬â¢s politically incorrect views on race "were a product of his time," he tries to pretend that clearly racist statements by Lincoln were somehow anti-racist.
So then, do we think Lincoln was actually a good guy?
I think there's an argument to be made for him, as the advocate of the most sensible position on the slavery issue. After all, wasn't he the only national figure who advocated and end to the slave trade and repatriation?
Which of course was the only permanent solution to the slavetrade.
I get so tired of libertarian purists, even normally halfway smart people like Sobran, attacking Lincoln for holding the same racial views they themselves have. Maybe one has to humour libertarians out of politeness on sites like Liberty Post and Liberty Forum. But sometimes I think all the libertarians, paleolibertarians and southern federalists incuded, who defend the South's war to make our nation one big slave colony from sea to shining sea and always whine about Lincoln (my buddy Pat Buchanan's favorite politician) should be shipped off to Somalia with a copy of their beloved constitution in their hands.
Give me Liberty or Death? Shute, the blacks in Africa they all wanted to ship over here to make this good country into one huge Haiti would be more than happy to give them both.
(rant for today, sorry confed's B) )
2003-02-20 10:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by Frederick William I@Feb 20 2003, 04:37 **But sometimes I think all the libertarians, paleolibertarians and southern federalists incuded, who defend the South's war to make our nation one big slave colony from sea to shining sea and always whine about Lincoln (my buddy Pat Buchanan's favorite politician) should be shipped off to Somalia with a copy of their beloved constitution in their hands. **
As each day brings more and more insanity to this country, this may not be a bad option.
What's the ship's ETD? ;)
<img src='http://www.mauricesbbq.com/cart_images/truth23.gif[/img]
2003-02-20 11:58 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Feb 19 2003, 12:04 ** Then again, Seabiscuit Annie probably pulled down seven figs for her book. Oops, I almost forgot she's "this generation's answer to Swift and Voltaire". Meanwhile, everybody worth reading is either dead or self-publishing on the Internet, and paying for the privilege besides. **
You're right about Anne Coulter.
Very high babe factor, though.
She gets a pass from ol' Walter.
2003-02-20 12:05 | User Profile
Walter ol' kid, I've learned never to argue with anyone's taste in the opposite sex. I'd soon learn to hate ice cream, if it only came in one flavor.
2003-02-20 12:07 | User Profile
**I get so tired of libertarian purists, even normally halfway smart people like Sobran, attacking Lincoln for holding the same racial views they themselves have. Maybe one has to humour libertarians out of politeness on sites like Liberty Post and Liberty Forum. But sometimes I think all the libertarians, paleolibertarians and southern federalists incuded, who defend the South's war to make our nation one big slave colony from sea to shining sea and always whine about Lincoln (my buddy Pat Buchanan's favorite politician) should be shipped off to Somalia with a copy of their beloved constitution in their hands. **
Very well put.
Lincoln did what he had to do. His harsh measures are the very same ones many of his latter-day detractors would gladly employ themselves given but a chance (and I aim to get them one!)
The simple truth is that slavery is wrong, it's an affront to man's natural liberty, it denigrated free white labor, it corrupted white slaveowners as much or more than it did blacks.
And even without regard to that IT DIDN'T BLOODY WORK economically, politically, socially, culturally, historically - the list goes on. It was an unqualified disaster for us whites, and a somewhat more qualified disaster for blacks. Lincoln wanted to buy them out and send them to Liberia - he understood that we couldn't live with them under any conditions.
I'm a great admirer of the Confederacy and the many Confederate heroes and I fairly worship at the altar of Southern culture. But let that not blind us to the simple fact that slavery was wrong and worse than that it was a patently stupid policy that contained the seeds of our own destruction.
Walter
2003-02-20 14:07 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 20 2003, 06:07 **The simple truth is that slavery is wrong, it's an affront to man's natural liberty, it denigrated free white labor, it corrupted white slaveowners as much or more than it did blacks.
And even without regard to that IT DIDN'T BLOODY WORK economically, politically, socially, culturally, historically - the list goes on.ÃÂ It was an unqualified disaster for us whites, and a somewhat more qualified disaster for blacks.ÃÂ Lincoln wanted to buy them out and send them to Liberia - he understood that we couldn't live with them under any conditions.**
1) "Natural liberty" disappeared several millenia ago. Coercive stratification of society will necessarily exist - as it exists even today in pure form for several tens of millions in Asia and Africa (tastefully out of our sight and mind) - as long as the globe houses several hundred million humans.
2) One laughs at the characterization of white slaveholders as "corrupt". Listen to Mister Hand, boys and girls: "slavery is wa-rongggg".
3) Given that slavery has been the foundation of high culture for millenia, the "it doesn't work" formula is a prima facie stupidity. The only mildly presumptive argument in its favor is the technological one - all others involve fundamental questions of value and perspective, on top of that of the inescapability of the institution.
4) Speaking of which, today's state-imposed slavery within the Communist Russian and Chinese regimes is the direct responsibility of our Greater Judean oligarchs - and represents the tidy displacement (but continued exploitation) of the institution from these shores such that its subject population can fatuously congratulate itself upon yet another of its non-existent "virtues".
2003-02-20 14:26 | User Profile
You build me a time machine and set the wayback controls for Ancient Rome or Athens, that's one thing.
But "natural liberty" or no "natural liberty", I don't want no damn dirty ape touching my food with its paws, or living in my house.
2003-02-20 14:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Feb 20 2003, 08:26 You build me a time machine and set the wayback controls for Ancient Rome or Athens, that's one thing.
But "natural liberty" or no "natural liberty", I don't want no damn dirty ape touching my food with its paws, or living in my house.**
Who says that your slaves have to be "dirty apes"?
Plenty of Chinese slaves working for you right now, Mastuh.
2003-02-20 14:50 | User Profile
So when are we gonna team up and write/publish [u]Letters to a Young Paleoconservative[/u]?
2003-02-20 15:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by Drakmal@Feb 20 2003, 08:50 So when are we gonna team up and write/publish [u]Letters to a Young Paleoconservative[/u]?
When we figure out how to induce intellectual puberty.
2003-02-21 03:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 20 2003, 12:07 > I get so tired of libertarian purists, even normally halfway smart people like Sobran, attacking Lincoln for holding the same racial views they themselves have. Maybe one has to humour libertarians out of politeness on sites like Liberty Post and Liberty Forum. But sometimes I think all the libertarians, paleolibertarians and southern federalists incuded, who defend the South's war to make our nation one big slave colony from sea to shining sea and always whine about Lincoln (my buddy Pat Buchanan's favorite politician) should be shipped off to Somalia with a copy of their beloved constitution in their hands. **
Very well put.**
Actually, I admit I do get exasperated at times with libertarians trying to deal with the slavery problem, as with everyone else trying to deal with this intractable problem.
Overall, in spite of my irritation with their occasional monotonous and reactionary triumphialism, I admit as a paleo that in the balance of ideals between North and South, the predominance of the right was on the Soouth's side. But I don't see why these Southernphile can't admit occasionally that a lot of Nawtheners had legitimate fears about the direction Southern slavery was going, such as the push to expand slavery and export black slaves not only into the territories but even the free states, their continuation of illegal slave importation, and the negative effects slavery had on the culture and mentality of the South.
Lincoln did what he had to do. His harsh measures are the very same ones many of his latter-day detractors would gladly employ themselves given but a chance (and I aim to get them one!)
Lincoln is really no hero, if you look at the record. I think he allowed himself to be pushed into a corner, and made the country pay the price.
But he definitely wasn't the only villain, or even the worst figure on the scene. I think in his statements of ambivalence on the black question, which paleolib Rockford, and Southernophiles, there was an aspect of legitimate moderation in his demeanor, which the South bears some responsibility for not taking advantage of. Smarter minds, not just on the Northern side, might have found a way to repress the irrepressible conflict, to the betterment of all involved.
**The simple truth is that slavery is wrong, it's an affront to man's natural liberty, it denigrated free white labor, it corrupted white slaveowners as much or more than it did blacks.
And even without regard to that IT DIDN'T BLOODY WORK economically, politically, socially, culturally, historically - the list goes on. It was an unqualified disaster for us whites, and a somewhat more qualified disaster for blacks. Lincoln wanted to buy them out and send them to Liberia - he understood that we couldn't live with them under any conditions. **
NeoNietzsche may be right about natural liberty. It can be a nefarious concept ripe for abues by the neocons. But the negative utility of it is pretty clear, as you note.
2003-02-21 03:43 | User Profile
Walter Yannis: Lincoln did what he had to do. ** That would include JAILING newspaper writers and owners?? No more habeus corpus? Just throw over the Constitution anytime you want? ** His harsh measures are the very same ones many of his latter-day detractors would gladly employ themselves given but a chance (and I aim to get them one!) So, you support the Patriot Act and Patriot II, the Return? You're NOT worried about all the rights we're losing? Cause Lincoln throwing over the Constitution was just fine with you?
Can't say as I agree with THAT! <_<
And slavery is a continuum -- any of y'all think you can say and do anything you want with "your" property? Try not paying your house taxes. Try not registering your car. You .. excuse me... WE are all slaves of a sort. Can you say anything to your boss, or do you need to retain your job? Can you just up and move wherever you want, or do you have to find work, find a place to live, and so on... "Wage slave" is a well-chosen term!
You might say there is a difference because you can CHOOSE to quit your job. But let's be realistic -- you can't 'strike off' into the wilderness and make your own life. And because no master holds sway over your life and death? No, now the ex-SLAVES do! And it's RANDOM -- a slave master doesn't carelessly damage or kill his property. Blacks kill randomly and just for hate! Do you really differentiate between the hispanics on the Tyson lines and slaves? Does Tyson?!
2003-02-21 03:55 | User Profile
Lincoln was our first Bill Clinton, so he probably had several different "views" on race - and on everything else. All the whining about slavery was, and is, pure agitprop. But the moralising over it by us is no better. The important thing about Lincoln was that he ended the republic by murdering hundreds of thousands of former countrymen - all for profit. Had the first generation of Stepford Amerikans had any sense of history, they'd have lynched him, and Southerners would've handled their negro population in an orderly and civilized manner. Evidently that ain't tha Amerikan way.
2003-02-21 07:20 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 21 2003, 03:43 ** > Walter Yannis:ÃÂ Lincoln did what he had to do. ** That would include JAILING newspaper writers and owners?? No more habeus corpus? Just throw over the Constitution anytime you want? ** His harsh measures are the very same ones many of his latter-day detractors would gladly employ themselves given but a chance (and I aim to get them one!) So, you support the Patriot Act and Patriot II, the Return? You're NOT worried about all the rights we're losing? Cause Lincoln throwing over the Constitution was just fine with you?
Can't say as I agree with THAT! <_<
**
I point out that as an open admirer of Herr Hitler, you are estopped from raising any rule-of-law arguments. Lincoln's actions are the epitome of prudence compared to those of your beloved Beast of Berlin.
In time of a national emergency, all bets are off and a patriot will do whatever must be done to secure his nation's freedom. The rebellion of the South was such an emergency, and Lincoln acted accordingly. Of course, war is messy and there inevitably are abuses, but Lincoln's greatness lies in his dedication to reason and measure, unlike the nihilistic fanatics of both the European Left and Right of the 20th century.
Unlike Lincoln's measures undertaken to secure the union from an internal disorder, the Patriot Act is clearly treasonous and aimed at national destruction. After all, were Shrub really serious about internal security, he'd (1) seal the borders, (2) kick out forthwith all illegal immigrants, (3) remove all who bear a foreign loyalty from any position of state power, including especially Jews and Dispensationalist Christians (while of course guaranteeing civil rights for all), and the list goes on. No expanded powers are necessary to accomplish these no-brainer actions. The fact that Shrub undertakes no such actions proves that he is not loyal to Lincoln's white and Christian nation, but rather is enthralled to a foreign power, Israel. Thus, the Patriot Act differs diametrically from Lincoln's measures, because it is not a shield in defense of our nation, but rather is in fact a sword to the throat of that very nation by Israel and its treasonous fifth column.
Lincoln was no dictator, as proved by the fact that his repressions were limited in both target and scope. He repressed only those actively seeking to undermine the war effort, and when the danger passed, full press freedoms and habeus corpus were restored.
He was a man, and very far from a perfect one. He was no saint. But he was God's gift to our nation in a time of great peril.
Your thoughts on slavery are just silly. Of course nobody is absolutely free. We are all limited in our actions by the needs of society and our own imperfect power to rule even ourselves. Your concept of freedom is an adoloscent's strawman. Slavery is turning a person over to the unlimited, arbitrary control of another. Note the words "unlimited" and "arbitrary." The difference between freedom and slavery is not that one party has more power in the relationship than the other, but rather that one party has all of the power and the other has none.
In Russia before Ivan the Terrible the serfs had the right to change masters every St. George's Day, right before spring plowing. This was a substantial right, in that the threat of changing masters at such a critical time tended to discipline the nobility and provided the serf's some negotiating power. The nobility had most of the power, but the serfs had some, and that was the difference between freedom and slavery. That ended with Ivan the Terrible, whence comes the Russian proverb "well, there's St. George's Day for you, granny", which means basically "life sucks and then you die." Russia endured nearly 300 years of auction-block slavery after that.
The point is that St. George's Day was the difference between freedom and slavery, despair and hope for improving one's lot. The worker at Tyson's is a free man, who works for himself and is free to invest in himself, and in general play the cards God dealt him as best as he sees fit. I worked plenty of menial jobs as a young man - combine driver, field hand, factory worker, liquor store clerk. Hell, seaman in the US Navy. But never was I a slave. Always I was working for myself with a view to improving my lot, and I did. The Russian serf had no such prospects.
I point out that abortion on demand fits the definition of slavery - it takes one human being, the unborn child, and places it under the unlimited and arbitrary power of another, the mother. Your conflation of free labor and serfdom is thorougly un-American, as is your admiration for one of America's historical enemies and your support of the enslavement of unborn Americans.
Get your American head straight, girl.
Walter
2003-02-21 07:29 | User Profile
Frederick William,
I have to disagree with you on this part.
But I don't see why these Southernphile can't admit occasionally that a lot of Nawtheners had legitimate fears about the direction Southern slavery was going, such as the push to expand slavery and export black slaves not only into the territories but even the free states, [u]their continuation of illegal slave importation,[/u] and the negative effects slavery had on the culture and mentality of the South.
See section nine of [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=619&hl=confederate+constitution]this magnificent document :D[/url] on that please. We just so happen to have a post for that. The Confederacy banned the importation of slaves.
Walter,
**Lincoln wanted to buy them out and send them to Liberia - he understood that we couldn't live with them under any conditions. **
I will leave aside the merits or lack of merits in regard to Lincoln, save that I hold him responsible for the destruction of the Tenth Amendment, paving the way for future abuses. The statement above I have serious doubts about. What isnt taken into consideration were the Radical Republicans. I doubt that they would have allowed Lincoln (if he had lived) to deport these folks to Liberia for the reason that we see Republicans and Democrats not wishing to do anything about illegal aliens today-- votes. The Radicals saw the freed blacks as a means to exercise power indefinitely via the Freed Mans Bureau.
2003-02-21 09:11 | User Profile
**I will leave aside the merits or lack of merits in regard to Lincoln, save that I hold him responsible for the destruction of the Tenth Amendment, paving the way for future abuses. **
Well, yes and no.
The 10th Amendment really did become a dead letter after the Civil War and the tragic triumph of often unfettered Federal power, but that just begs the question of whether it was not really the South that killed the 10th Amendment by taking up arms against the Constitution itself.
I lay most (but certainly not all) of the blame at the feet of the Southern hotheads who gave up negotiating with their Northern brothers and started shooting. Both sides failed, no doubt about that. We needed to compromise our way out of that mess, beginning with the understanding that black slavery was ruinous for us and that it was a national problem that required a federally-funded solution (i.e. repatriation to Liberia).
Both sides failed utterly in that historical task, and the damage to the Republic has proven thus far irreparable.
Walter
2003-02-21 10:42 | User Profile
Sorry, Walter,
I will not accept the bulk of the blame for the War on the South. When it comes to hot heads there were as many north of the Mason-Dixon Line as there were south of it. Nor do I accept that the South destroyed the Tenth Amendment by succession, an act I consider to be conpletely constitutional. The Tenth Amendment could have been restored to its original intent by the victors. They chose to do otherwise and even without the war I think they intended to gut it.
We`re going to have to agee to disagree on this one.
2003-02-21 13:07 | User Profile
I point out that as an open admirer of Herr Hitler, you are estopped from raising any rule-of-law arguments. Lincoln's actions are the epitome of prudence compared to those of your beloved Beast of Berlin.
Not so. Hitler wasn't pretending to be and hasn't been portrayed as a democrat. Nor were the systems or the situations the same.
In time of a national emergency, all bets are off and a patriot will do whatever must be done to secure his nation's freedom.
Which is it, Hitler the Beast or Hitler the patriot?
The rebellion of the South was such an emergency, and Lincoln acted accordingly.
It was no "rebellion" nor "emergency". Lincoln's action stood the founding principles of self government on their head.
"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
"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
"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
"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
"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 consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it." ~ Robert E. Lee
"The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domainââ¬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
"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
The 10th Amendment really did become a dead letter after the Civil War and the tragic triumph of often unfettered Federal power, but that just begs the question of whether it was not really the South that killed the 10th Amendment by taking up arms against the Constitution itself.
Having seceded, as they had every right to do, Southerners no longer had any say about the tenth or any other part of the US Constitution. Twas Lincoln who was obligated to uphold that which he claimed to be preserving. Exercising their constitutional rights is not "taking up arms against the Constitution". Not permitting its exercise is "taking up arms against the Constitution".
I lay most (but certainly not all) of the blame at the feet of the Southern hotheads who gave up negotiating with their Northern brothers and started shooting.
George III would have agreed. Just remember that not a single individual was killed during the firing on Ft. Sumter. It was Lincoln who first authorized killing as a means of destroying the rule of law. That pretty much validates their lack of faith in further negotiation with a tyrant.
...the damage to the Republic has proven thus far irreparable.
How long could it expect to survive among a people who considered it nothing but pretty prose, to be abrogated upon its exercise?
2003-02-21 13:36 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 21 2003, 01:20 **In time of a national emergency, all bets are off and a patriot will do whatever must be done to secure his nation's freedom.ÃÂ The rebellion of the South was such an emergency, and Lincoln acted accordingly.ÃÂ **
"...to secure his nation's freedom."
Boys and girls, to which person and "nation" does this phrase properly apply during the War of Northern Aggression?
And how y'all enjoying the Empire of Greater Judea which Honest Abe, beloved of the Tribe, heroically founded for you?
[Please deposit your breakfast in the toilets or waste baskets, boys and girls. Spitting is not permitted in class.]
2003-02-21 14:12 | User Profile
I want to add one more comment on this increasingly popular but contradictory idea of Hitler being an "admirer" of Lincoln, and how it's supposed to somehow make Hitler bad and Lincoln good. The fact is, all of the blather about slavery and all the blather about fascist dictatorship was in both cases nothing but agitation. The underlying cause of the South, as well as of Hitler, was the attempt to remove themselves from financial despotism. Unlike Lincoln, Hitler was considered by Germans in surrounding lands to be a rescuer. He certainly didn't kill Germans in order to do this. Too bad that Lincoln didn't have a convertible automobile to ride in through the South he was saving from itself.
2003-02-25 14:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by NeoNietzsche@Feb 21 2003, 07:36 > Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Feb 21 2003, 01:20 In time of a national emergency, all bets are off and a patriot will do whatever must be done to secure his nation's freedom.ÃÂ The rebellion of the South was such an emergency, and Lincoln acted accordingly.ÃÂ **
"...to secure his nation's freedom."
Boys and girls, to which person and "nation" does this phrase properly apply during the War of Northern Aggression?
And how y'all enjoying the Empire of Greater Judea which Honest Abe, beloved of the Tribe, heroically founded for you?
[Please deposit your breakfast in the toilets or waste baskets, boys and girls. Spitting is not permitted in class.]**
I must again comment upon the extraordinary twist of mind that allows one to characterize the suppression of a "rebellion" as the securing of a nation's freedom.
Whatever one's interest in and orientation to such an event, one properly understands that the "rebels" are doing the fighting for freedom - just as would even be the part of prisoners in a jail break or slaves involved in a revolt.
The only "freedom" at risk in this instance was that of the Confederacy, which wished only to be left alone and which had no intention of transforming the North. Lincoln as freedom-fighter is an effrontery and an emetic inversion such as one expects only from the ideological enemy.