On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary:
(Dialogue With Kevin Tierney)

Kevin's words will be in shale coloured font. Without further ado...

So I pursue some reading today, and it talks about how [Mitt] Romney didn’t really oppose same sex marriage. They state that when the court forced the issue, Romney complied.

That is no different than Appellate Court Justice John Roberts voting to confirm Roe vs. Wade in 2003. It did not mean he supported the decision. He was doing what an appellate judge is supposed to do: affirm the laws on the books whether they personally like them or not. Nor in his hearings when he said RvW was "settled law" mean that he did not intend to find a way of overturning that abominable excuse for a proper common law judgment{1} when it was feasible to do. It merely meant he recognized that it was the law until that law was changed.

When faced with the fact that Romney had to obey, they proclaim that Romney should’ve pulled an Andrew Jackson “Justice Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it.”

That is Jacksonian Democracy at it starkest there. And while hard to be too critical of Andrew Jackson overall -as we would have lost to Great Britain had he not through clever strategery taken out installations in Florida and forced the British to invade at New Orleans- it is also true that what one does when involved in their very survival differs from decisions made in a more calm and secure scenario.

I never understood this fascination with people championing Jackson’s statement.

It has to do with the rise in judicial activism in recent decades. People repine for a simpler time when justices did not invent law and instead sought to rule in accordance with the law. Justice Marshall was the crown jewel of President John Adams' administration apart from Adams keeping us out of full-blown war with France in the last three years of his presidency. There is irony in Adams abhorring Alexander Hamilton as he did but then appointed as Chief Justice someone who was ideologically a Hamilton acolyte. Of course Hamilton and Adams were not diametrically opposite one another ideologically -they both had Federalist outlooks overall- but there is a splendid irony in Marshall's tenure on the court and the decisions he made which shaped it.{2} He was unquestionably the most important chief justice in history but I have optimism that we may see in Chief Justice John Roberts and his court a similar period of judicial cultivation.

But in a summary statement, it is Jackson's statement of telling the Supreme Court to go pound sand which those fascinated with his statement like. Unfortunately, the pre-Roberts courts -going back to at least the late 1930's to an increasingly degree since with the Rhenquist court not exactly doing a complete about face on the matter- have soured a lot of people's countenance on the matter of the Supreme Court and what its limitations are constitutionally. And people in that frame of mind like to see someone stand up to them even if they project Jackson into the present day and his words as applying to certain decisions of the Court in recent decades.{3}

The issue at hand was the forcible removal by United States troops of American Indians. The state of Georgia also attempted to force the Cherokees to abide by Georgia state laws, a clear violation of existing treaties between the federal government and the Indians.

That is correct. The Cherokees were a nation unto their own and therefore the proper relation to the United States was on the federal level, not that of the states.

There’s no doubt that what Jackson did was clearly unconstitutional, and a grave usurpation of executive power.

The problem is, Jackson should have set aside his personal views and executed the decision of the Court. This was not a case of the Court ruling in a fashion that violated the Constitution as was the case with the 2005 Kelo decision.{4}

He ignored the Supreme Court ruling and his actions culminated in the trail of tears, where thousands of Indians died.

Not only that but President Jackson took it a step beyond that. When some Cherokees signed the Treaty of New Enchota in 1835, President Jackson lobbied the Senate to ratify it which they did by one vote. (It was then proclaimed in May of 1836.) President Jackson then escaped the ramifications of the treaty by turning over the presidency to the incoming Martin Van Buren in March of 1837 who refused to consider that the treaty itself was possibly invalid because those who signed it were not authorized by the Cherokee nation to do so. The rest sadly enough is history.

When people study history, nobody ever talks about the Trail of Tears as a highpoint of American History.

Well, no one I am aware of does. The idea of reservations themselves are not the issue with me as much as how this was handled. Those who did not want to assimilate should have been allowed to retain their land either wholly or in part and received just compensation for the rest. But without question the Cherokee relocation was a black mark on this nation's history.

Jackson flagrantly violated the Constitution he was sworn to uphold, his actions were fueled by bigotry, and led to the death of thousands.

Andrew Jackson was very much a despiser of Indians and this went back to his history as a warrior fighting the Indians.The problem is, as President of the United States you have a responsibility to the common good in a way that you do not as a military man. And on the matter in question, one could argue that President Jackson should have recused himself -his lobbying for the passage of the treaty certainly does not fall under the category of "recusing oneself" or at least I do not see how it does.

And conservatives want to emulate this???

Well, this is an example of wanting the wrong thing for the right reasons on the part of many conservatives. Judicial activism is rightfully deplored by so many of them. But you do not fight judicial activism by refusing to recognize the rule of law. I understand the problem with judicial activism and I sympathize with those who parrot the famous Jackson dictum on Justice Marshall. However, once one side sanctions judicial activism, they have no recourse against the other side doing it as well. And without recognizing the rule of law, we are no better than the animals -that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 1, 2007)

{2} Not to mention that John Adams sent his son John Quincy to clerk for Alexander Hamilton when the latter was arguing cases in court -another interesting irony in the Adams-Hamilton saga to put it mildly.

{3} I will not lie: I had Jackson's statement in mind after the Rhenquist Court ruled on Kelo case back in 2005. If not for the fact that the decision made me so livid I could not write genteelly on the matter, I would have blogged on it at the time in some detail.

{4} One of several cases in recent decades prior to the Roberts Court where this was unquestionably done as the pretenses of judicial activism grew amongst the "penumbra of a penumbra of a penumbra" crowd of make-it-up-as-you-do Constitutional so-called "interpretation." Chief Justice Marshall's words in his ruling of Worcester vs. Georgia in 1832 should be branded onto the forehead of every nominee to the high court:

"If it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which those rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future."

That embodies a principle that was misplaced in a good chunk of the twentieth century. Hopefully with the Roberts Court we will see a court much more like the Marshall Court than any Court of the previous six decades plus were.

It's What We Call The News

It has been a while since we checked in with Jibjab and this one from earlier in the year ticked our fancy. As usual, their astute "commentary" explains it well...in this case the BS that we so often call "news" these days.

Points to Ponder:

Reason is God's great gift to man, and the victory of reason over unreason is also a goal of the Christian life. [Pope Benedict XVI]

Bush's New Dentist Faces Tough Confirmation Hearing (via The Onion)

Briefly before I forget to mention it again, I referred to a posting back on November 18th that was forthcoming on this humble weblog in the following words:

I have finally decided as of yesterday morning to outline a few things pertaining to where this weblog has focused in the past year as well as what my blogging policies will be into the indefinite future. Hints have been dropped here and there in the past year (some intentional, others were of a more implicit nature) since I outlined early in 2007 some areas I wanted to focus on both in blogging as well as in the real world in general. I do not want to say more on it until then as that posting will explain things adequately- both by revisiting those previously enunciated intentions and also point out certain factors subsequent to them which have crystallized my mind on the matters at hand both with blogging as well as real life.[...] But enough on that for now -see the thread when it is finished and blogged (which it will be on November 22nd) for more details. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 18, 2007)]

The thread spoke of in the above posting was substantially completed when those words were blogged but remains to be reviewed and refined before it is ready for actual posting. I originally was optimistic for a November 22nd completion but in a posting written on November 21st{1} realized it was not yet ready. This acknowledgement was made in these words:

I just realized that November 22nd is Thanksgiving and therefore am moving the posting previously scheduled for that day until probably November 24th. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 22, 2007)]

And of course I had to issue a further clarification on the matter two days later in the form of an update note to the posting of November 22nd in these words:

Update: I have neither the time nor the desire to deal with that posting at the present time. It will be added in the coming week probably on Monday. -ISM 11/24/07 7:25 pm. [ibid]

It does not take much astuteness to note that the post itself has not been put up yet. Like several projects I have had in mind doing which have not materialized as of yet, things beyond my control prevented it. Nonetheless, I will be tending to it soon along with the unfinished projects I still intend to undertake completing -their number dwindling with each passing day and greater reflection on my part as to the expediency of spending time on them notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} It was written then but would not post on the evening of November 21st for some reason.

Points to Ponder:
(Pertaining to the Mainstream Media's Reporting on Iraq)

Your country is rich and I want you to set aside differences between yourselves and your Sunni brothers and stand like a formidable mountain against attempts by certain satellite networks which try to disrupt this unity because these networks exaggerate about the reports of deaths and explosions and depict them in a way as if tribal war is underway in Iraq. [Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (circa September 26, 2007)]

Better to Be Ruled By A Wise Mormon Than A Foolish Baptist (Kevin Tierney)

In trying to get a handle on a variety of issues both in real life as well as of a blogging nature, I requested of my friend to write a commentary on Mitt Romney's recent big speech. I anticipated a good text but Kevin really exceeded himself. Without hesitation I recommend as a substantial accounting of my own view on the subject in question the above commentary to the readers of Rerum Novarum.

Points to Ponder:

As a blogger who sees lots and lots of headlines through various sources there is one thing I would love to do. I wish I could write a search and replace macro virus that would go through all of the various news organization style guides and make some changes.

Headline writers are just getting too lazy. One word I especially see used way too much is "slam" or "slams" Apparently everyday somebody is slamming something. In fact later generations if they go by news sources will be convinced that at one point there was an Pope who took the name of Slams since so many headlines say Pope Slams this and Pope Slams that. Though it isn't just the pope who gets the slam treatment, it is used throughout all headlines on just about any topic.

In almost all cases slam can be replaced with "disagree" or "criticizes." I guess those words just aren't as sexy for headline writers. But surely people get desensitized to always using slam and it will be less likely to catch your eyes. [Jeff Miller]

For some reason, the quiz graphs below are not posting right. Nonetheless, here are the results I was given...

Based on your responses, your top candidate for 2008 is below.

Your Top Match: California Representative Duncan Hunter (R) 90.00% match

You are number 1,629,444 to use the Candidate Calculator.

It is a shame that Rep. Duncan Hunter is not getting more press coverage. He would make a great president and I do not say that because he agrees so much with me -though that would not hurt of course ;-)

Congrats to Venezuela for Avoiding a Potential Repeat of Munich in 1933

Points to Ponder:

The relationship between authority and personal judgment may be described as dialectical. That is to say, the two are neither identical nor separable. Our personal convictions about what is right and wrong are at least partially shaped by what the community and its leaders have taught us, and on the basis of those convictions we determine whether to follow the community's authorities in a given instance. To the extent that we have been successfully socialized into the community, our free and spontaneous judgments about right and wrong tend to coincide with the rules and expectations of the community. [Avery Dulles, SJ]

The Storm Cone:
(By Rudyard Kipling)

This is the midnight-let no star
Delude us-dawn is very far.
This is the tempest long foretold-
Slow to make head but sure to hold

Stand by! The lull 'twixt blast and blast
Signals the storm is near, not past;
And worse than present jeopardy
May our forlorn to-morrow be.

If we have cleared the expectant reef,
Let no man look for his relief.
Only the darkness hides the shape
Of further peril to escape.

It is decreed that we abide
The weight of gale against the tide
And those huge waves the outer main
Sends in to set us back again.

They fall and whelm. We strain to hear
The pulses of her labouring gear,
Till the deep throb beneath us proves,
After each shudder and check, she moves!

She moves, with all save purpose lost,
To make her offing from the coast;
But, till she fetches open sea,
Let no man deem that he is free!

Pope Benedict XVI's Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi on Christian Hope

Points to Ponder:

Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. [Thomas Paine]

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

Just a few as time is too short to say much at the present time...

Poll says Chavez loses Venezuela referendum lead

I have two predictions on the above thread's information. First of all, Chavez will do whatever he can to not lose on the referendum including cheat to "win." Second, supporters of Chavez -not a few of whom are deluded enough to think that Bush "stole" an election in 2000{1}- will care about as much as Washington state Chavez supporters cared about the fact that the corrupt King County election machine stole the governors election from Dino Rossi in 2004.{2} The evidence for the latter dwarfs the former like Snow White dwarfed Sneezy but it goes to show the sorts of unethical double standards that many activist sorts will go to in propagating their particular weltanschauung.

Digging out more CNN/YouTube plants - Abortion questioner is declared Edwards supporter (and a slobbering Anderson Cooper fan); Log Cabin Republican questioner is declared Obama supporter; lead toy questioner is a prominent union activist for the Edwards-endorsing United Steelworkers (Michelle Malkin)

Nicely done Michelle!!! Does anyone care to bet that the Clinton Cable News Network will not allow Republican declared questioners at the next Democratic Party debate???

Planet-saving madness (Christopher Booker)

None of this is a surprise -indeed readers of this weblog know that we pronounced on the global warming matter some time ago{3} but it does not hurt to remind readers of this considering the magnitude of the confidence trick many are attempting to pull with the so-called "global warming" schtick.

Notes:

{1} And no to any Bush Derangement Syndrome readers of this humble weblog but there were no presidential "stolen" elections in either 2000 or in 2004. The Supreme Court made the correct decision under the law in 2000 with the blatant crime being the activism of the Florida Supreme Court on that matter.

Yes we all know that the vote to stop the recount was 5-4 for Bush, but there is more to the story than that. For example, 2 of the 4 who sided with Gore concurred with the majority that there was no uniform standard of vote counting and that there were constitutional issues in what the Florida State Supreme Court was requiring. Further still, one of those justices who concurred with the majority but did not vote with them was a personal friend of Al Gore and therefore he arguably should have recused himself. With such a recusal of course a 5-3 vote on the matter would have taken place. (4-3 if Scalia had recused himself also though the connection he had to Bush was far less solid.) In other words, 7 of the 9 justices concurred on the problems in Florida but had a plurality of views on how to remedy the problem.

More could be said but the constitutional problems in Florida with the vote counting -to say nothing of 50,000 military absentee ballots which were ignored and the military vote for Bush would have been at least 70%- presented a problem that could not be resolved during the waning days of an election cycle when the results have to be certified by a fixed date. Besides, Bush had already won four recounts anyway. There is no rational way to conclude that Florida was "stolen" in 2000 when all the factors above among other ones are taken into account.

As for Ohio in 2004, the irregularities there were no different than what happens in a lot of states though I do not recall the Democrats calling for investigations into the election oddities in Pennsylvania or Wisconsin which were if anything more suspicious than Ohio. Oh yes, they won those states so there could not have been voting irregularities!!!

{2} A few threads were written by us on that event at the time which are noted here from oldest to newest:

"Grand Theft Auto Election" Dept. (circa December 5, 2004)

A Reluctant Rerum Novarum Prediction That Has Unfortunately Come True (circa December 23, 2004)

"Grand Theft Auto Election" Dept. -The Saga Continues (circa December 30, 2004)

On the Washington Governors Heist Race and Other Tidbits (circa January 16, 2005)

{3} On the Fraud of "Global Warming" With Greg Mockeridge and Kevin Tierney (circa April 16, 2006)

Debunking the Galileo Myth (Dinesh D'Souza)

The Road Not Taken:
(By Robert Frost)

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth.

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same.

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Miscellaneous Notes:

This was supposed to post last night but for some reason did not. Nonetheless, I have a few brief items to cover here; ergo...

--I just realized that November 22nd is Thanksgiving and therefore am moving the posting previously scheduled for that day until probably November 24th.

[Update: I have neither the time nor the desire to deal with that posting at the present time. It will be added in the coming week probably on Monday. -ISM 11/24/07 7:25 pm]

--If you need another case study in why the government should not be trusted with much, consider what has recently happened in Great Britain with the confidential information of half the country's bank accounts going missing.

--One of the many important elements of the United States Constitution is the provision that a civilian will be commander and chief of the armed forces. The reason this was insisted upon by the Founding Fathers was a fear of a military coup. Pakistan had one of those back in 1999 and one of the problems with a general who is also chief executive is that there is no way to rein him in.{1} I note these things here because President Musharaf of Pakistan may be quitting the Pakastini army to assume the presidency in a civilian capacity. We in America should be thankful this year (as much as any other year) that we have not had to deal with the problems of having a military executive.{2}

--I also want to remind readers of President George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789. It is not that long a text indeed the previous sentence contains a link to it. But notice if you will how many references in the text are to God -fourteen in three paragraphs counting the signature of President Washington on a public act of the President of the United States. So those of you who are buying into that canard about the so-called "separation of church and state"{3} which has been paraded about in recent decades that dog will not hunt.

And of course a Happy Thanksgiving from those of us at Rerum Novarum to you and yours.

Notes:

{1} Vigor is of course important in any executive and a weak executive is never a good thing for a nation to have. However, if there are not due limits on executive power, the temptation towards tyranny will always be present even among the best of men.

{2} And to any of you readers who may suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome President Bush for all of his faults is not a military dictator.

{3} The only "separation" that the Founders envisioned was that there would be no official religion of the state the way there was (and still is) in Great Britain.

Miscellaneous Musings:

Two tidbits and then I will probably not blog again until the new blogging month begins in four days unless it is a "stray link of interest" sort of posting. Nonetheless...

--I have finally decided as of yesterday morning to outline a few things pertaining to where this weblog has focused in the past year as well as what my blogging policies will be into the indefinite future. Hints have been dropped here and there in the past year (some intentional, others were of a more implicit nature) since I outlined early in 2007 some areas I wanted to focus on both in blogging as well as in the real world in general. I do not want to say more on it until then as that posting will explain things adequately- both by revisiting those previously enunciated intentions and also point out certain factors subsequent to them which have crystallized my mind on the matters at hand both with blogging as well as real life.{1} But enough on that for now -see the thread when it is finished and blogged (which it will be on November 22nd) for more details.

--The counter at TheReligionofPeace.com has in the past few days tallied over 10,000 in the number of deadly casualties inflicted by terrorists since September 11, 2001 -standing at 10,019 as of this writing. I doubt that the media would give that figure even one hundreth of the attention that the much bandied-about 2,000 figure got a couple of years ago when the figure of US servicemen who have died since theI noted military intervention in Iraq in March of 2003. Nonetheless, we at Rerum Novarum have noted on occasion the rising tally and certainly the 10,000 mark seems appropriate to again point readers to a reality that the mainstream media does its darndest to either ignore or significantly downplay. The site itself (TheReligionofPeace.com) has a good reflection on the milestone above and I recommend readers to give it a viewing when they have time to.

Note:

{1} I will briefly note that it takes time and the impact of various factors to round generally nebulous notions into a solidified reality -perhaps the process can be explained better but that is all I have time for at the moment.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -Plaintiff vs. BARRY LAMAR BONDS - Defendant

The above text is the indictment of Barry Bonds which was handed down today by a San Francisco district court. Readers of this humble weblog know full well your host's views on the matter of Barry Bonds being the new "home run king" as we outlined them back in October. Nonethless, we want to state for the record that our opinion on this is based solely on our knowledge of human physiology as well as the effects of steroids. (Based on our observation of others we know who have taken them in years past.) But that point aside, all one needs to do is look at these pictures of Bonds and notice how starting in 1999 he begins getting a bloated face and bulk on his frame and by 2001 it is unmistakable.

Even if Barry Bonds survives these indictments, the die is cast and his career while at one time a sure future Hall of Fame winner{1} is less likely now. If he does get in, along with Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and others their achievements will always be questioned and rightfully so.{2} Bonds would at the very least be able to offset some of it if he comes clean on this matter -he may have to go through a Pete Rose kind of exile{3} before eventually being accepted. As for the records which have been altered as a result of this usage -by Bonds as well as others- time will tell what major league baseball will do about it.

Notes:

{1} Bonds was arguably the best player in baseball during the 1990's prior to the steroid controversy. Certainly he was one of the most well-rounded players in history and the only player to ever have 500 home runs and 500 stolen bases. (Prior to 1998 he was a consistent base stealing threat.) He also played excellent field defense and was a productive and clutch bat in the lineup. His 400-400 status at that time alone (400 home runs, 400 stolen bases) would have made him a shoe-in for the Hall in and of itself as no one else has matched that combination of power and speed. But he acted unethical and for that he should endure an exile from baseball akin to what Pete Rose has had to endure up to the present day.

{2} Perhaps putting astrisks by their names and any career numbers they put up would be a good idea.

{3} My view on Pete Rose is essentially this: he made mistakes and has had to pay for them for some time now. Ultimately though, a player's status for the Hall should be based on what they do on the field and Rose was arguably the hardest worker in baseball history. He holds a few records none of which (to my knowledge) were attained by cheating. In other words: reinstate him into baseball so he can be eligible for the Hall of Fame.

Points to Ponder;

[It] is quite unlawful to demand, defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, of writing or worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. [Pope Leo XIII (1810-1903)]

Iran Hands IAEA Nuclear Blueprints

Along with Muammar al-Gaddafi{1} and the latter's agreement to expose his WMD program to UN Inspectors a few years back{2}, one has to ask if any of these developments would have happened if the United States had not involved itself militarily in the Middle East after 9/11. According to former Italian Prime Minister, this was what motivated Gaddafi to volunteer to reveal his WMD's and submit his country to inspections by the UN.{3} It seems feasible that the surge (a subject recently covered in some detail at this very weblog) may be a motivating factor in Iran's latest move -too early to say for sure but certainly it seems appropriate to advance that hypothesis tentatively so I will do so at this time.

Notes:

{1} Whose name I rarely spell right by my own admission.

{2} Briefly on Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's Situation (circa December 22, 2003)

{3} President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War portrayed Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War by stating that Gaddafi acted out of fear for the future of his own regime if he continued to keep and conceal his weapons. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much. [Wikipedia: From the Article Muammar al-Gaddafi]

Points to Ponder:

Notice everything, turn a blind eye to much and correct a few things. [St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153)]

On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

These musings were the result of the following article from The Washington Post which we read about a month ago:

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled (Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung)

To start with, the article itself is another piece of evidence for the hypothesis that the surge approach in Iraq is working. However, there is as always a broader approach to these matters that needs to be considered and I will touch on it now for those who are interested.

One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there.

Now I did not to my knowledge say anything publicly{1} on it but for the better part of over three years I was admittedly not happy with what appeared to be our approach to post-war stabilization and development. I have been pleased with the surge approach and as I noted earlier this year both briefly in passing{2} as well as later in a bit more detail{3}; however, I have not publicly to my knowledge explained one facet of the equation for why I view the postwar situation there as I do except perhaps indirectly in one of the threads where I have dismantled the "chickenhawk" canard paraded about by certain pundits opposed to the war.{4} One of the principles enunciated in those postings also applies to this issue but there is more to it than merely preserving morale on the home front. There is also the credibility of the United States in keeping its word -something that was seriously damaged in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and which still is a factor involved here.

The United States did not lose the war in Vietnam. Indeed our troops defeated the North Vietnamese in every battle including one that the msm tried to spin as a "defeat" for the American forces.{5} And this was also despite some of the most incompetent of bureaucratic attempts to micromanage the war itself. But after the withdrawal of troops after the signing of a peace treaty in 1973, President Richard Nixon pledged to South Vietnam the United States' assistance to help maintain the peace. This written pledge was reneged by the Congress in 1974 and 1975 when they cut off funding and left the South Vietnamese to be slaughtered by the North Vietnamese. This is why I say that the United States won the war in Vietnam but the Congress lost it. And what was lost in the process was the confidence of other nations and people that we would keep our word.{6}

It is no exaggeration to say that the loss of credibility of the United States in the aftermath of the Vietnam War is what gave the Soviet Union the confidence to assist communists worldwide and saw ten nations between 1975 and 1980 fall into communist hands while President Jimmy Carter's military endeavours failed miserably -particularly his invasion to try and rescue the hostages taken by Iran in 1979.{7} President Ronald Reagan when he came into office in 1981 checked this with his tough approach to the Soviets and even set into place policies designed to export democracy which saw democracy flourish in places it never had before during the 1980's and 1990's. But one thing which was not cured was the perception that set in after Vietnam of a loss of national resolve on military matters.

The reaction of the US after terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was a rare case of reacting weakly to terrorism during the Reagan Administration. But even then, there were no military endeavours the US was involved in which were not able to be dealt with quickly and the concern in all cases was always to avoid making any of them "another Vietnam." President George H. W. Bush's approach to military interventions was on the whole good but he did make the mistake of not supporting the Iraqis after the Gulf War. He persuaded them to rise up and then did what President Kennedy did with the Bay of Pigs and the result was similarly disastrous. And with that the Iraqi people were given a good reason to doubt the resolve of the United States.

Indeed the continued lack of military resolve as manifested by the Clinton Administration during the 1990's was what sowed the seeds for 9/11 with Bin Laden himself claiming that he knew the United States was ready for an attack when he saw how the Clinton Administration handled difficulties in Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident.

While the overall approach taken in Iraq has by all statistical standards been remarkable -both in the low casualty figures for troops and civilians during the war as well as troop and civilian deaths in the postwar stat- it has taken a while to see things finally appear to have some semblance of progress in the postwar period of stabilization. There are a variety of possible reasons for this from events being cyclical to the surge itself etc. but I want to suggest one which the surge strategy{8} strongly implies and it is this:

--The surge sends the message to the people of Iraq that when we promise to have their back this time that we can be trusted to keep our word.

I believe this is an important element and one that cannot be underestimated. It is a key reason why I never bought into the whole "they will welcome us as heroes" presumption that many had when we went into Iraq and liberated them from the clutches of a spawn of Satan. The Iraqis were obviously happy that he was ousted but like the hydra of Greek mythology, cutting off the heads of the monster only resulted in more heads developing whereas stabbing it in the heart was how the beast was killed. The surge idea is one that potentially can get at the heart of the Islamic extremist beast and kill it off sufficiently enough to where we can get Iraq capable of full self-government faster and thus be able to at the very least draw down the forces we have there. The question though is one of trust though; namely, can we be trusted to keep our word and have their backs.

It is my opinion that the Iraqis are finally starting to trust us enough to inform us of where the extremists are enabling us to clean out their hornets nests to a degree we were not able to before. This trust has not come easy and it had to be earned to this point. Again, we encouraged the Kurds to overthrow the government in Iraq after the Gulf War and when they rose up, we did not provide support and Saddam crushed them. It makes sense to speculate that the Iraqi people remember that and only recently have started to trust us to actually be there for them and not tuck tail and run at the first signs of trouble Black Hawk Down style. I hope that even those who did not support the war and who are not happy that we are there as a result of it would at the very least be willing to reconsider their presuppositions on this subject with those factors in mind. However, before we can expect that, it seems appropriate to touch on some of the reactionary approaches that critics of the military endeavours in the Middle East have involved themselves in.

On the latter factor, there are of course sites out there that publish outlandish figures which have margins of error that (if you read the fine print) make them utterly worthless. Well, that is not completely true: they are worthless for anything except the sensationalist headlines that those more interested in promoting their agendas than actual facts can manipulate them for.

Unlike a lot of people, I am willing to give credence to the positions of others (even if I do not generally agree with them) as long as they show a concern for trying to find the truth rather than taking an "support my operative presuppositions by any means possible" approach which is a variation of "ends justify the means" methodology. Similarly, if those who try to tally such sites showed a concern for being thorough and interested in actual context rather than vague and merely looking to count anyone they can, it would be much easier to give their view credit as at the very least something to take into consideration. However, far too often it comes across as simply trying to create inflated numbers to sway the emotions of the largely malleable and generally-quite-uncritical public.

Pardon those of us who take reason and logic seriously if we do not give the time of day to those who engage in such charades. There can be (and should be) responsible criticisms of any position taken on this subject or any other. But before that is possible, there needs to be a separation of the wheat from the chaff on the part of both supporters of the war as well as those who oppose it. And furthermore, each side needs to show a willingness to reconsider their presumptions in light of relevant new evidences either of a circumstantial or a fundamentally philosophical/principled nature -to challenge if you will (in the words of the late Benjamin Franklin) "a bit of their own infallibility."


Notes:

{1} Some people heard an earful on it from us privately though.

{2} On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007 (circa July 11, 2007)

{3} On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)

{4} Here are the threads on that subject for those who are interested:

Revisiting the Absurd "Chickenhawk" Purported "Argument" and on the Odds of a Military Draft Anytime Soon (circa September 9, 2007)

Briefly Dispatching With A Standard Pseudo-"Peacemaker" War "Argument" Yet Again (circa July 28, 2006)

Revisiting the Flawed "Chickenhawk" Argument (circa May 1, 2006)

Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust (circa October 21, 2005)

Perhaps the best of the threads for a very short synopsis of the key issue is the one from June 28, 2006. (I say this as the threads prior to that one -particularly the one from 2005- are longer and the one subsequent to it was written when your host was tired and a bit cranky thereby not having the most irenic of tonality to it.)

{5} I refer here to the Tet Offensive for those who do not know.

{6} This is not the first time something like this happened of course -certainly The Bay of Pigs comes to mind. But the failure to keep our word in Vietnam was far more significant than what happened with the Bay of Pigs invasion. (Though the latter could be said to have been a kind of precursor for what was to follow.)

{7} Some might point to the planned Soviet invasion of Poland as one example of deft diplomacy but I would argue that the reason it was not undertaken was that President-elect Ronald Reagan said his incoming administration would support the outgoing Carter Administration and the Soviets knew that Reagan would not be the kind of pushover that Carter had been.

{8} It bears noting that the additional troops for the surge were not all in place until a few months ago: right about the time the number of casualties begin noticeably declining. This does not mean that the two are necessarily connected of course, only that it is possible. I would argue for reasons noted further up in this posting why this is a logical cause and effect outlook on the matter in question.

Points to Ponder:

I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. [Galileo Galilei]

More reasons to like Nicolas Sarkozy

Points to Ponder:

Believe it can be done. When you believe something can be done, really believe, your mind will find the ways to do it. Believing a solution paves the way to solution." [Dr. David Schwartz]

Some of the things that we receive in the email -this one is true in so many ways but that is all I will say on it ;-)

WORDS WOMEN USE

FINE
This is the word women use to end an argument when they feel they are right and you need to shut up. Never use "Fine" to describe how a Woman looks - this will cause you to have one of those arguments.

FIVE MINUTES
This is half an hour. It is equivalent to the five minutes that your football game is going to last before you take out the trash, so it's an even trade.

NOTHING
This means "something", and you should be on your toes. "Nothing" is usually used to describe the feeling a woman has of wanting to turn you inside out, upside down, and backwards. "Nothing" usually signifies an argument that will last "Five Minutes" and end with "Fine".

GO AHEAD (With Raised Eyebrows)
This is a dare. One that will result in a woman getting upset over "Nothing" and will end with the word "Fine".

GO AHEAD (Normal Eyebrows)
This means "I give up" or "do what you want because I don't care". You will get a "Raised Eyebrow Go Ahead" in just a few minutes, followed by "Nothing" and "Fine" and she will talk to you in about "Five Minutes" when she cools off.

LOUD SIGH
This is not actually a word, but is a nonverbal statement often misunderstood by men. A "Loud Sigh" means she thinks you are an idiot at that moment, and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you over "Nothing".

SOFT SIGH
Again, not a word, but a nonverbal statement. "Soft Sighs" mean that She is content. Your best bet is to not move or breathe, and she will stay content.

THAT'S OKAY
This is one of the most dangerous statements that a woman can make to a man. "That's Okay" means that she wants to think long and hard before paying you back for whatever it is that you have done. "That's Okay" is often used with the word "Fine" and in conjunction with a "Raised Eyebrow".

GO AHEAD
At some point in the near future, you are going to be in some mighty big trouble.

PLEASE DO
This is not a statement, it is an offer. A woman is giving you the chance to come up with whatever excuse or reason you have for doing whatever it is that you have done. You have a fair chance with the truth, so be careful and you shouldn't get a "That's Okay".

THANKS
A woman is thanking you. Do not faint. Just say you're welcome.

THANKS A LOT
This is much different from "Thanks." A woman will say, "Thanks A Lot" when she is really ticked off at you. It signifies that you have offended her in some callous way, and will be followed by the "Loud Sigh." Be careful not to ask what is wrong after the "Loud Sigh," as she will only tell you "Nothing".

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

These threads were taken from the weblog Sound Politics which we read on occasion and definitely recommend for those who want to get a view of what is going on in my neck of the woods. Briefly on a few of the recent threads...

Prop 1 on Election Night

Bottom line: if it is not close, the election manipulators in King County cannot successfully cheat.

King County Elections scores own goal for I-25!

Readers who remember my fury over the stolen governors election back in 2004 see more of what the problem then was: King County Elections not being held accountable. I predict more fraud in any election touching on King County this time around.

Boondoggle Two-fer

My proposed alternative to the "sound transit" mass transit boondoggle is in the combox at the link above.

Points to Ponder:

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. [Sen. Barry M. Goldwater (circa 1964)]

Florida sheriff's bulletin warns of purported new human waste high

Just when you think you have seen it all.

Points to Ponder:

Until you have learned to be tolerant with those who do not always agree with you; until you have cultivated the habit of saying some kind word of those whom you do not admire; until you have formed the habit of looking for the good instead of the bad there is in others, you will be neither successful nor happy. [Napolean Hill]

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

Without any ado...

France's president abruptly ends 'stupid' interview on '60 Minutes'

I have said for a while now how Nicholas Sarkozy had made me suspend my previous view of having nothing nice to say about the country or people of France.{1} I am trying to find the transcript for the 60 Minutes interview with French president Nicholas Sarkozy but I have not had much time to spend looking for these sorts of things as of late. Nonetheless, I like this guy the more I hear of him. Let me see:

--He had some things that were positive to say about the United States in general.

--He takes seriously the threat posed by Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons (or as President Bush calls them "newclur weapons").

--He wanted to discuss substantive issues.

--He got annoyed by attempts to tabloidize the interview by CBS and as a result terminated the interview.

What is there to not like about those things??? Sarkozy is aware that there are a lot of people out there like your humble servant at Rerum Novarum who detest the post-Napolean lack of a spine of the French as a people and as a nation. He is aware that many of us view the French with disdain because of a history of cowardice and appeasement, a history of snooty elitism (despite their cowardice and appeasements) as well as a lack of gratitude.{2} However, we must also be willing to assess things anew from time to time particularly when significant changes take place -and the election of a non-socialist to the presidency of France earlier this year seems an appropriate time to do this; ergo that is what I will do for the indefinite future.

Half of US voters say never to Hillary: poll

I am not one who places a lot of trust in polls generally speaking; however this one does not sound as if it could have been spun by very much. I mean, if you ask people "are there anyone you would never vote for if they ran for president" that is a pretty straight forward question. But it is nice to see something that may tell against the sort of "inevitability" that the msm is trying to make out of Hillary presidency.


Notes:

{1} In light of the many dead French who have heavily influenced me in various areas over the years -both in the areas of philosophy, law, economics, theology, etc- that previous stance may shock people to see it stated so bluntly but that was my operative presupposition on France and the French in general as far as those who are presently alive up until very recently.

{2} Now it must be noted that the actions of a nation do not necessarily indicate the will of the people at times but France had a habit of electing socialists (read: communists) to government for a long time. It was therefore not inappropriate to consider them in light of their past trackrecord on these matters prior to the election of Sarkozy.

Cardinal Camillo Ruini encourages the religious to blog

We have long been fond of Cardinal Ruini -indeed some readers of this weblog may remember that he was our "Italian alternate pick" for pope in April of 2005.{1} One thing we have long appreciated about Cardinal Ruini is his geopolitical astuteness as well as his willingness to consider innovative approaches to addressing problems with a diversity of character to them.

With the internet, he admits his ignorance of the medium but wisely does not reject it out of hand as may do with those things of which they do not know much of. Blogging is intrinsically neutral in itself and capable of being used for good even if at times it does not appear that way. It is therefore with much appreciation that we take the above outlook from His Eminence and note it here briefly for your consideration.

Note:

{1} With Italian picks (and everyone has to agree that Italians are to be favoured at the conclave), it has to be someone akin to the above position wise. That is why I picked as my default Italian pick the vicar of Rome Cardinal Camillo Ruini after Cardinal Ratzinger who as I noted previously is my non-Italian European pick and number one choice). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2005)]

MC Hammer and Bill Cosby's Appearance on Tim Russert

Hammer is right: those who want to be critical of Bill Cosby should check themselves as Mr. Cosby is saying what has needed to be said for a long time. The systematic and institutional racism that Cosby speaks of has more applications than he hints at though -albeit there is only so much one can say in a six minute television clip.

One truth that bears noting is what would happen and has happened to non-blacks who say the same things Mr. Cosby is saying. I have long believed and said that slavery still exists in society that is promoted by many who give the appearance of "caring" for other people. This is a subject I may touch a bit on later but for the time being, it suffices to point to the above thread from Hammer and encourage readers to give it a read and the Russert clip of Bill Cosby a listen.

Holy Souls Masses Registration:

This years scroll of the dearly departed -individuals of note and also family groupings by last name:

Richard Dunn McElhinney f
James Dunn McElhinney u
Teresa Mildred McElhinney gm
Paul Dowd McElhinney gf
McElhinney fam
Dunn fam
Flynn fam
McCann fam
Mark Usher sgf
Virginia Usher sgm
Usher sfam
Brooks fam
Hellstrom sfam
Leta M. Allen sa

David Kanski u
Mary H. Kanski gm
Harry Kanski gf
Harold Kanski u
Kanski fam
Haluk fam
Hruby fam
Duma fam
Rogowski fam
Denny fam
Omafrey fam
Ripplinger fam
Spence fam
Mel Clark sgf
Jane Clark sgm
Clark fam

James Jenner OP p
Joseph Fulton OP p
Blessed Sacrament Parish/Dom. Priory
St. Pius X Parish
Corpus Christi Parish

Jeff Cox cl
Rasmussen ext-fam
Tull ext-fam
Chris DiSomma f ext-fam
Anselmo ext-fam
St. Blogs ext-fam
Mike Mentzer t
Mentzer tfam
Arthur Jones t
Michael Jackson t
Cipriani ffam
O'Grady ffam
Bannon ffam
Ziadeh ffam
Stein ffam
Smith ffam
Tierney ffam
Mockeridge ffam
Blosser ffam
D'Hippolito ffam
Roy Sabin acq
Anne Sabin acq
Tim's friend (cannot recall his name at the present but God knows)
Brittany Salzano

While I am sure more will come to mind than just those later on, they are what will be noted at this time. The link to the Purgatory Project can be found HERE and I encourage my readers to check it out and register the names of family and friends.{1}

Eternal rest grant unto their souls O Lord and let perpetual light shine upon them. May their souls and all the souls of the faithfully departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen

The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found [me]. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord on that day (2 Tim i,18).

Note:

{1} One should not presume that my recommendation of the above site constitutes a blanket approval of all or even many (or even most) of the other threads they have posted there. Nonetheless, they do have a good thread on explaining purgatory written by Jimmy Akin which can be read HERE and which I do highly recommend.

Points to Ponder:

[T]he tradition of today is the progress of yesterday and the progress of today is the tradition of tomorrow. [Jean Guitton]

On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

[Last Minute Addition: In the news not long before the final touches were made to this posting was a story of the Democratic Congress attempting to undermine relations in the Middle East for purely partisan reasons. (It involves a retroactive condemnation of an event that happened nearly a hundred years ago.) This event makes the week-plus-in-the-drafting-post you have before you somewhat prescient as readers will see once they have finished reading it. Your host's low opinion of this stunt may well be dealt with in a later posting but it bears noting here in brief to point out how the principles we outline here at Rerum Novarum have both a contemporary as well as a timeless quality to them. -ISM]

When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him-at least, I find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him. [Abraham Lincoln (circa August 21, 1858)]

I was originally going to post the link at the bottom of this post with the title as follows sans any additional commentary:

--Influential Nineteenth Century Black Intellectual Delivers Memorial Oration To Honour Slain Former White Supremacist President For Freeing The Slaves and Ending an Institution He Actually Wanted To Preserve

The problem with such attempts at sarcasm though is that they are often not seen for what they are -or at the very least run the risk of being seen that way by those who do not take a moment to actually ponder what they read before presuming to form a presumed "informed opinion" on it. And that is how the link would have to be titled if we were to espouse a not-so-uncommon revisionist view of Abraham Lincoln which permeates some circles. Now admittedly some of this revisionism is spun because of the mythology that surrounds Lincoln to some extent. However, I do not see how one sets right a particular set of myths with propagating another.

Essentially there are two extremes here which need to be avoided. The first is those who try to present without spot or wrinkle people from the past. The second consists of the converse; namely, those who try to present people as having nothing but spots and wrinkles. Both approaches are taken by those with agendas to push and the extent to which some persons are given the favourable over the unfavourable treatment depends a lot on the foundational presuppositions of the person in question.

I have found frequently in my life that those who have an agenda explicitly or implicitly of destruction generally go for the approach that presents their perceived "foes" in as flawed a fashion as they can while either ignoring or downplaying the flaws of their "allies" or otherwise extolling them in some form or another.{1}

The second approach noted above is usually done by those who in some form or another make the mistake of failing to assess someone historically within their time of living. They in other words commit the fallacies of the "whig historian" which we have noted a number of times on this very weblog.{2} But that is a complex subject to discuss in and of itself; ergo I want to note it briefly and then move onto additional exposition taking issue with the attempts at revisionism to the person and memory of Abraham Lincoln.

The idea that Abraham Lincoln was not a great man because his motives for freeing the slaves were not 100% pure (or that George Washington was not a great man because he actually owned slaves) shows a remarkable degree of blindness to the complex nature of historical situations. This is particularly problematical because many of those who would take these positions would refuse to turn a similar mirror onto particular favourite persons of theirs. The whole trying to unvarnish one set of heroes and whitewash another set of people to take their place is a classic example in spades of the law of non-contradiction and it highlights a problem many people have with presuppositional favouritism over any attempt at being genuinely and objectively fair to historical figures in general.

I know some of the people who would try to darken Lincoln's historical portrait but would then do everything they could to explain away the pox marks on records of people in history they liked or otherwise had some kind of intellectual dependence on for some issue or another. For example, I know of "distributivists"{3} who feel that America and the capitalist system are possessing of great evils or imbalances; ergo they do not have a problem with trying to combat this by seeking to belittle the giants in American history{4} who do not concur with their presuppositions. They then give a free pass to someone such as Hilaire Belloc who was an exponent of their particular economic weltanschauung which is in and of itself a violation of the law of non-contradiction. As I have both taken significant issue with what I see as logical and ethical flaws in Belloc's preferred system{5} as well as defended Belloc himself from those who try to blacken his memory by judging him by today's standards{6}, I am in the position here of showing consistency on the principle which I am outlining in this posting. And having defended Belloc on this basis previously, I will now do the same with Lincoln but in doing so some basic principles need to be accounted for first.

Ultimately, we should always strive to judge anyone from history equitably and that means not judging them by modern standards but instead in accordance with their own time and the presuppositions involved therein. I say this because views of what is right and what is wrong can change over time and the deeper the wrong, the more difficult it is to remove root and branch from public consciousness. In the case of slavery, as noxious as it is and as opposed to it and its many manifestations{7} by every fiber of my being that I am, I do not fault Americans prior to the Civil War for failing to completely eviscerate slavery. There is an importance to any civilization and society to have order and structure and those matters must come first and foremost. It is from there that movements can be made to seek to amend and put right various societal wrongs.

Those who would favour overturning an entire society to try and eradicate grave wrongs are no different than those whom wise spiritual writers have chastised at sundry times and in divers manners for making bad situations worse through well-intentioned but ultimately imprudent zeal. But that is neither here nor there as to go into that subject would detract from the purpose of this posting so I will note the principle briefly in a footnote{8} and then move on.

It would not have for reasons I have noted before{9} practical or logical to have banned slavery either at the start of the Republic or even during the Constitutional Convention. I also noted previously the fact that there were many Founders who were vehemently opposed to slavery -even some of which owned slaves incidentally- who recognised the need to compromise on the matter for the preservation of the Union.{10} The slavery system was deeply embedded in parts of American life and for a variety of reasons could not have been torn up wholesale at once when the Republic was young and vulnerable.{11} Abraham Lincoln himself explained the matter adequately in an 1854 response to Stephen Douglas on the repeal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise (which itself was intended to limit the expansion of slavery) so we will quote his words at this time on it:

[Slavery] is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers could not do; and more they would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and further, they would not go. But this is not all. The earlier Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave trade--that is, the taking of slaves from the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa into the Mississippi Territory--this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was ten years before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800, they prohibited American citizens from trading in slaves between foreign countries--as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803, they passed a law in aid of one or two States laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance, to take effect the first day of 1808--the very first day the constitution would permit--prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the principle, and toleration, only by necessity. [Abraham Lincoln (circa October 16, 1854)]

The purpose of the above response on Lincoln's part was to point out to those who opposed the abolition of slavery that the intention of the Founders was to see a toleration of slavery until such a time as it could be eliminated and taking gradual actions to arrest the further development of slavery in new territories to thus pave the way for an eventual extinction of the institution. Having noted those things briefly, let us now consider some of the ways that certain revisionists have sought to sully the historical memory of Abraham Lincoln. To start with, here is one reference to some of what Lincoln noted in one of his seven election debates in late 1858:

In the presidential debates of 1858, Lincoln said, "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…[I] am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position." [LINK]

It is a bit ironic perhaps that the above quotation was taken verbatim from an article talking about the importance of critical thinking skills. But that point aside for a moment, the "presidential debates" were in 1860, not 1858. In 1858, Lincoln was opposing Stephen Douglas for the United States Senate out of Illinois. Furthermore, there is a lot removed from that quote which is obviously fashioned to make Lincoln look as sinister as possible. Here is a broader quote used at times by some who try and make the claim that Lincoln was a "white supremacist." The words in the above quote will be underlined in the one to follow so that readers can see the degree of deception involved in such proof texting:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” [LINK]

There is of course a greater context still to this phrasing and I will now show the reader what it is -the above paragraph noted by underlining and the first quoting in italics to show the magnitude of the misrepresentation involved. Oh and the points noted as audience laughter were in the text being so referenced and were left in for reasons which will hopefully be evident to the reader:

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. [LINK]

I want to point the readers to a concept in the above paragraph that they may find odd today: the idea that someone would oppose the federal government being an engine of social manipulation. When you read Lincoln's words about being opposed to "producing a perfect equality between the negros and white people" that is what he is referring to: opposition of using the federal government to attempt to produce it. It may seem odd as well to modern eyes to see a major figure of the nineteenth century espousing the view that they believed that the differences between white and black people would make it not possible for the two races to live together "on terms of political and social equality." There was also some obvious sarcasm in the text as well in a number of spots -most notably the part where Lincoln said that he was not concerned that either he or any of his friends would marry negros even if there was not a law in Illinois against it but apparently Douglas and his supporters are afraid that they would if there was not such a law!!! There are in other words a lot of threads in the mosaic in other words and they all deserve to be carefully considered by someone interested in properly representing the thought of the late Abraham Lincoln.

It also bears recalling that the standing that blacks held in society at that time: in the south they were viewed as property and in the north they were viewed as a lower class of people generally speaking. The northerners opposed slavery but that does not mean that they supported equality of the races across the board. They often did not and this presupposition was itself based on a concoction of facts, presumed "scientific studies", personal observations, and assumptions drawn from those (and probably other) areas.

As unfortunate as we would view this outlook today, we have to remember that this was par for the course in all dealings of one group of people towards another which they were not well familiar. It used to be that people in any given group had a natural distrust of "outsiders" or those viewed as such on the basis of race, religion, creed, nationality, or whatever{12} -certainly such stances were often taken due to ignorance of the unknown. But is it true that such ignorance has itself been overcome even in our more presumably "enlightened" era??? Readers can consider the manner whereby many who are so scathingly critical of Lincoln respond to those they have an aversion towards and find their answer in the actions and statements made therein.

For those who would today berate people in past eras for being xenophobic based on religion, race, presumed "scientific studies", or other categories used in the past would do well to stop and consider if they are not similarly bigoted themselves. All one has to do is take a small tour of the web and they can find no shortage of sites where self-righteous so-called "progressivist" sorts who speak against those who do not agree with them in ways similar to any Klansman in eras past against certain groups the Klan found not to their liking (i.e. Jews, blacks, Catholics, Irish, etc).

In the current climate, animosity about present military involvements have a number of these sorts finding all sorts of ways to tag with intended labels of derision those who do not agree with them. This is why your host continually expects and even (at times) demands that those who attempt such things to explain their use of terms. This principle is at the heart of the ongoing "'neo-con' challenge" which we in recent years have issued a number of times -most recently HERE. Until those who use that term bother to define their terms, we view their derisive use of it no differently than white people who used to refer to blacks as "niggers" and I say that without the slightest hint of exaggeration whatsoever.

Consider furthermore how many of those who have tried overtly or covertly to tar and feather Lincoln as a "racist", those people should stop and ask if they do not themselves with the "welfare" policies they advocate putting the blacks and other minorities into defacto economic slavery which is itself a form of created class inferiority. There is after all more than one way to be a racist or to otherwise advocate "position[s] of superior and inferior." As far as your host is concerned, those who advocate increased welfare programs for minorities out of some misplaced belief that they need to be "taken care of" should consider whether or not their white man's burden approach is not itself a form of subtle racism.

Now I am of course hardly going to claim that the misdirected approach of those who advocate "welfare" for poor people or minorities is inexorably bound up in a form of "subtle racism." However, I do note that interpretation here merely as an instructive for those who would rashly try and discredit people of other time periods for attitudes not in vogue to contemporary sensibilities. But enough on that point and onto the overall impression that the full paragraph of Lincoln's speech above should convey to the reader approaching this matter with the intention of objective fairness. And certainly while more could be said than that, it cannot be denied that no matter how charitable of a construction is placed on the paragraph above, there are still some parts which would trouble many modern readers. But as shocking as some of this may be to read, it bears in mind that we cannot fairly reproach Abraham Lincoln on these matters for how we view them today.

We live in a different time and under different presuppositions. In Lincoln's time, there were few if any black intellectuals, there were few if any truly successful and free blacks. Compare that to today where there are a number of notable black intellectuals, business owners, and the like and the climate is a lot different. It has been that way since 1865 with each generation of blacks being more successful than their predecessors but such things were unheard of in 1858 -the year the above quote was taken from. (Yet another factor that bears careful consideration by those who would deign to speak on these matters with any pretense of both historical sensibility as well as intelligence.)

What was also hampering the contemporary views of the time was a widely held view that the differences in the races were intellectual as well as physical. This view as we understand it now is false but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it was still a matter of open speculation. Lincoln noted the possibility that it was true which (i) is more than can be said for many who would have claimed that it was a certainty and (ii) also by logical extension included the possibility that it was not. When viewed through the lenses of his time, Lincoln's views while probably not radical were nonetheless quite progressive in the true sense of the term.{13}

Lincoln's opposition to slavery was constant throughout his political life and has earned him the rightful reputation as both The Great Emancipator by his actions as well as through his martyrdom which was a direct result of the cause itself. Many do not know that John Wilkes Booth's anger at President Lincoln and what drove the assassination attempt was Lincoln's more enlightened idea of extending the voting franchise to the educated blacks as well as the blacks who served as soldiers!!! That fact alone should shut the mouths of those who would berate President Lincoln for "not doing enough" as giving one's life for a cause is the most that anyone can do really.

However imperfect by modern standards, if we compare President Lincoln's views in April of 1865 (after General Lee's surrender) to the views expounded by senatorial candidate Lincoln prior to the Civil War, Lincoln showed in his revised position a remarkable capacity for adaptation to changed times and circumstances. There was also with all likelihood the influence of a certain person whom we will get to shortly who may have been the single biggest impression on Lincoln. (Thereby aiding him in making this paradigmatic shift from the outlook enunciated in the 1858 debates with Stephen Douglas.) Yes my friends, it is true that Lincoln did not originally believe that blacks should be in positions of societal responsibility; however, some of this may stem from an outlook coloured by the presuppositions we noted earlier in this posting -and a charitable person would put the best possible construction they could on these sorts of things. Furthermore, if those presuppositions were what Lincoln based his view on, it is obvious that he was willing to challenge his presuppositions and eventually revise to some extent. As the lions share of Lincoln's critics have not shown the same willingness to challenge their foundational presuppositions (instead treating them as defacto infallible), that is all readers of this humble weblog need to consider to understand why your host does not take these critics of Lincoln seriously as a rule.

Again, Lincoln's stature as a top tier abolitionist is clear and unmistakable to anyone who gives an objective reading of all the evidences supplied by history including the very words of President Lincoln himself in speeches spanning the entire length of his public political career. Now the moment those who are critical of Lincoln for not being as "perfect" on this issue as they would like are willing to give their lives for this cause or any other one of significance is the very moment that reasonable people can give some reasonable credence to their criticisms. But enough on that matter for now.

It seems appropriate after noting these things to take into account the assessment of President Lincoln that was given by one of his contemporaries -in this case the nineteenth century black intellectual and former slave Frederick Douglass. Douglass met Lincoln at the White House during the Civil War and would appear to have made quite the impression on him as I noted earlier. Here is the full text of an oration he delivered in memory of the fallen president on the eleventh anniversary of his assassination:

Oration In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln Delivered At The Unveiling Of The Freedmen's Monument In Memory Of Abraham Lincoln In Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C. -Frederick Douglass (April 14, 1876)

Whatever differences people of good will can take with some of the statements or positions of Frederick Douglass (may he rest in peace) in the above oration, one nonetheless cannot fail to appreciate his attempt to do justice to the whole of Abraham Lincoln and the results that came from the great events that Lincoln oversaw both during his presidency and also what was brought about in its aftermath. Would that more people today with biased agendas pertaining to Lincoln{14} and the events of his time would strive to be as equitable in their approach as Douglass was.

This writer asks that readers kindly give the above oration a complete and thorough read when they have the time. With that final note, this post will be ended now with some words from the Second Inaugural Address of the late President Abraham Lincoln (may he rest in peace) roughly five weeks before he was assassinated:

It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right--as God gives us to see the right--let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations. [President Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address (circa March 4, 1865)]

Notes:

{1} It is natural of course to feel an affinity for those we perceive to be our "allies" in a fight and even a kind of operative animosity towards those we believe are opposed to us. These tendencies however should never get in the way of trying as best we can to make as fair an assessment of persons and situations. Otherwise, there is a problem with approaching moral and ethical issues in a uniform standard and more often than not there is the use of double standards. Longtime readers of this weblog are well aware that your host has a serious problem with double standards being employed anywhere and at any time.

{2} Here they are in order from oldest to newest:

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on How Historians Should Treat Events and Situations of the Past (circa September 12, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on Real Historical Understanding and How to Properly Approach the Past (circa September 20, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Role of the Historian (circa October 14, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Myopic Vision of the Whig Historian (circa October 17, 2005)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on the Difficulty of the General Historian and the Whig Fallacy (circa April 22, 2006)

Points to Ponder From Herbert Butterfield on a Fallacy of the Whig Historian (circa May 30, 2007)

{3} Threads on Distributivism From 2007 (circa September 29, 2007)

{4} On Slavery and the Founding Fathers of America (circa April 17, 2007)

{5} See footnote three.

{6} On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations (circa March 11, 2007)

{7} There are more ways to enslave people than just physically after all but also psychological and economic as well. I am opposed to all forms of enslaving others without just cause -either explicitly or by logical inference as a violation of one of their fundamental rights.

{8} In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak. [Fr. R.P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Allay Their Fears pgs. 153-158 (c. 1795) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa September 29, 2002)]

{9} See footnote four.

{10} See footnote four.

{11} I do not intend in this posting to go into that matter in any detail; however I probably will at some point down the road.

{12} We who are fortunate to live in a society where communication between people is potentially greater than at any time in history do well to remember that it was not always this way -indeed increases in communications technology has inexorably made it much harder than it once was to be as ignorant of other groups as was the case in past eras.

{13} All I will say here is that most who call themselves "progressivists" do not take positions on a number of their pet issues that actually are an improvement for humanity and society at large; ergo their application of the term "progressive" to themselves is a misnomer.

{14} I refer both to those sorts that (i) would proclaim Lincoln to be either sinless or (ii) without any redeeming qualities to his character whatsoever.