The American Spectator

ET TU, RENDELL?

Re: Jeffrey Lord’s Pennsylvania GOP Sues ACORN and Rendell Appointee:

What a surprise — that Rendell, who disenfranchised US military serving overseas in 2004, would come out in favor of ACORN.

— David L. deLesdernier

And they have the gall to call Governor Palin out over Alaskan secessionists? Pennsylvania is a good example of why there are so many secessionist movements in the United States, including Alaska, California, Vermont, New Hampshire, Texas, Maine, Minnesota, South Carolina, New England, etc. If the Federal government relies on authority based on this kind of fraud, it will not be long before we are no longer one nation indivisible, under God, or not.
— Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

NOT THE PARTY OF LINCOLN

Re: H.W. Crocker, III’s How Would Jefferson Davis Vote?

Strange as it may seem, most Abraham Lincoln haters of our day are found among conservatives and libertarians. But why? Aren’t they supposed to believe in the freedom of the individual? Consider H. W. Crocker’s paean to Jefferson Davis, in which the attempted rehabilitation of Davis comes at the expense of Lincoln. Most of us grew up admiring Lincoln, so it’s a shock when we find out he had enemies. Before there was Bush Derangement Syndrome, there was Lincoln Derangement Syndrome. He was at various times called a baboon, imbecile, murderer, tyrant, fiend, monster, simpleton, buffoon, drunkard, libertine, coward, fungus, and butcher.

“We venerate Lincoln,” said Crocker, “but in many ways Jefferson Davis was far the more interesting statesman.” As Jim Carrey would say, “Reheheealy.” 

There follows a list of Davis’s accomplishments over against Lincoln’s supposed inexperience. Now, I’m not going to adopt Crocker’s strategy. I’m not going to defend Lincoln by denigrating Davis. But there were indeed striking differences in their political principles.

Crocker denies that Davis’s principles were unworthy. “It is true that Davis thought slavery in the South was a positive good…” He glides right over that, as if it were of small importance. Davis in fact believed slavery was “established by decree of Almighty God.” Opposing slavery was therefore opposing God. How unworthy can a principle get? On the other hand, while Crocker absolves Davis of sin, he imputes unworthy motives to Lincoln’s opposition to slavery. “Lincoln certainly opposed slavery, but on grounds that might make us uncomfortable today. He wanted to keep the Free States (or newly created Free States) the domain of white labor.”

Of course, Lincoln wanted to keep the territories free of slavery for the reason that he believed it would eventually cause slavery in the South to die out.

In addition, Crocker cites some of Lincoln’s mid-19th century ideas about the relation between blacks and whites. In fact, repatriating blacks to Africa was considered the “liberal” thing in those days (as opposed to enslaving them). Also, with respect to some of Lincoln’s more “racist” sounding statements, I don’t think many fair-minded people would blame Lincoln for not always sounding like a 1960’s liberal!

Crocker commends Davis for believing that the ultimate end of slavery might be ‘the preparation of that race for civil liberty and social enjoyment.’ However, this was simply the patronizing view of blacks, the idea that Africans were too childish and degraded for liberty. It was too often used as an excuse.

I think it’s preposterous for Crocker to claim that Davis would vote for Obama, implying that Lincoln would not. Crocker says, “Davis did indeed put his country first.” On the contrary, he put his state first, not his country, as Crocker must admit. “After the war, he proved to his own satisfaction, in a massive treatise, that secession had been constitutional.” Well, as long as it was to his own satisfaction, who are we to argue? I doubt McCain would accept Davis’s endorsement.