-
Putting on Ears
June 11, 2013 | 20 comments
-
My Grandfather, Aaron Homnick (1893-1969)
May 29, 2013 | 4 comments
-
That Is What We Do
May 14, 2013 | 108 comments
-
Shame Old Shame Old From Obama
April 19, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Cut Out the Chase
April 5, 2013 | 83 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Lincoln Goes to Hollywood
You won’t want to miss his press conference.
This past Saturday I donned a top hat to play Abraham Lincoln in Hollywood, Florida, in a special Sabbath program which was the brainchild of Rabbi Edward Davis. He is a history buff who augments his pastoral duties with little spontaneous forays into thespian staging of our past. No audition for the part of Honest Abe was required. As a six-foot-two conservative commentator with a small writer’s beard, I was elected.
>The weekend featured two public events. On Friday night there was a communal meal (215 people at a subsidized $20 a plate) featuring Civil War Era dishes, including a meat loaf seasoned with some heavenly combination of spices unlike anything common in today’s fare. After the entrée, there was a debate where Rabbi Davis spoke first, reciting a sermon delivered by a Rabbi Raphall of New York in 1861, arguing that slavery could not be deemed a sin according to the Bible.
Then it was my job, in character as Lincoln, to make the case against slavery. I began with some amusing self-introduction, which quickly won the crowd into my corner.
Coming back from the dead for this weekend is a real treat. Amazingly, I have been gone more than seven times twenty years, but who is keeping scores?
The Pony Express has been replaced by motor vehicles and yet the mail has not improved much. In fact, I am still getting letters delivered to my Gettysburg Address.
The man who fired the first shot for the North in the Civil War was Colonel Abner Doubleday, who also invented the game of baseball. What do the Civil War and baseball have in common? They are both dominated by those damn Yankees!
Then I shifted into the substantive portion of my presentation. Yes, it was true the Bible had made provision for slavery. Indeed this afforded a protection for the human being against the possibility of utter starvation for self and family. If a person found himself bereft of marketable skills and merchandise, beyond the reach of governmental, institutional and private charity, his ultimate resource was to offer his freedom for sale.
Yet in latter times that vehicle was proving too unwieldy. It was daunting to police such a system against abuse. I went into some length describing the difficulties Jews had encountered in India, trying to own slaves on the Biblical system. We find rabbinical letters, as early as the 16th century and as late as the 19th — criticizing their behavior towards the slaves and even towards freedmen who were being kept at arm’s length from society.
I noted that a “recent” book, Das Kapital by Karl Marx, while flawed in its prescriptions, offers an insightful theory to the effect that industrialization eliminates the need for slavery in world economies. Machinery will replace that layer of the least valuable brute labor. In a time of developing technology coupled with inadequate systems for protecting the slave from abuse, it is fair to denote slavery as a de facto sin.
THE SECOND PUBLIC EVENT took place on Saturday afternoon and involved a formidable challenge. I had to hold a 60-minute press conference in the persona of Abe Lincoln, fielding all and sundry questions for a crowd of about a hundred very knowledgeable people.
Some of the questions had been solicited in advance via e-mail, so I was able to prepare a bit, but most of it was done on the fly. Here are a few choice excerpts to the best of my recollection (no recording done on the Jewish Sabbath):
Q: Mister President, I heard that you once climbed out of the window in the Illinois Legislature to break quorum, but you later said you regretted it. What do you think of modern attempts to break quorum?
A: Let me address that globally, without reference to particular parties or issues. I think the idea of quorum is to protect members against having their voices silenced by their inability to be present. The moment a legislator is informed of the session and he refuses to attend, he should be deemed as exercising his democratic vote by abstaining. He should be considered present and he may be counted towards the quorum.
Q: Mister President, when Stephen Douglas said that slavery should be a personal choice you mocked the argument, and it was considered illegitimate in American political debate for many decades. Now this argument has been resurrected in favor of a woman’s right to abortion. Do you still dispute it in this new context?
A: There are two responses to this. One is technical and legalistic. The other is ethical and moralistic.
About the Author
Jay D. Homnick, commentator and humorist, is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator. He also writes for Human Events. Here he speaks at the Rally for Religious Freedom in Miami on June 8, 2012.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (86) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jay D. Homnick
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/lincoln-goes-to-hollywood
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- Back in the Fray
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Dee See| 2.28.11 @ 7:43AM
---Lincoln's been done on stage, screen and tv.
Seems like just a routine moral alibi for franchise
slum Hollywood for effectively burying ALLLLL
public consciousness of the ever unfolding
'eugenics friendly' RED Chinese Halocaust.
Far more relevant and fascinating would be to
look into the ever more telling assasinations of
BOTH Garfield and McKinley against the backdrop of the organizing and implementation of the
agendas of global finance, and the ILLEGAL
establishment of our FIAT currency issuing, fractional reserve debt creating, ----PRIVATE
and unaccountable ' FEDERAL' Reserve Bank.
CHECK IT OUT!
Alan Brooks| 2.28.11 @ 4:41PM
BTW, I don't hate the South, my important family members live there. Perhaps most Southerners are better people than Lincoln was; I never say Lincoln was a good person-- only a good president.
George Washington was vociferously attacked in his day despite being the Father of His Country.
Why? because, frankly, Washington deserved it.
Alan Brooks| 2.28.11 @ 4:45PM
PS,
Why DO I put down the South? because I wouldn't trust Southern police and courts as far as Matlock could throw a basketball in the yard of his nursing home.
Vern Crisler | 2.28.11 @ 8:19AM
Mr. Homnick, your view of how Lincoln would respond to the abortion question shows that you really do not understand Lincoln or his political philosophy. You have essentially adopted Stephen Douglas's view of popular sovereignty. In fact slaves, like unborn children, were NOT accorded fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. As Lincoln said, Douglas's political philosophy assumed that Africans were not really distinguishable from hogs. That's not much different from the soulless view that babies are not really human.
ncatty| 2.28.11 @ 3:22PM
This categorizing of blacks and fetuses as less than human is an exact analogy, and was/is used to justify the enslavement of one and murder of the other.
Vern Crisler | 2.28.11 @ 7:10PM
Yes, the reason Lincoln rejected Douglas's "let the people decide" is that he believed in natural laws and natural rights -- the "ancient faith" as he called it, of the Declaration of Independence. It was this "ancient faith" that was denied by the defenders of slavery. Likewise, abortionists are deniers of our "ancient faith"; they too trample upon the Declaration.
Alan Brooks| 2.28.11 @ 10:42PM
Yet you want to sacrifice those fully grown for the sake of the unborn.
It is not what you say, it's what you do not-- you are pious towards the unborn, socially darwinist towards the grown. You think anyone can't realize such by your actions?
Vern Crisler | 2.28.11 @ 10:54PM
A southern secessionists likewise argued that his liberty was being sacrificed for the sake of the freedom of the slaves. It was the secessionists and later the Progressives who were social Darwinists. Remember, the vp of the Confederacy appealed to the latest Darwinian "science" as showing that blacks were inferior.
Louis Jenkins| 2.28.11 @ 8:22AM
"liberty is not license and ought never be squandered on the base and the crude. "
And the opposite is now alive and well in the District of Criminals. Keep it up you guys, and we'll be busted in no time at all. In fact, we are busted. No one is telling the US just yet, well, except for a few individuals. The based and the crude are doing well, and the productive folks, we're way behind. As much as I dislike Lincoln, no slight Mr. Homnick, there was far more American in him than what's found in DC these days.
Alan Brooks| 2.28.11 @ 10:44PM
"As much as I dislike Lincoln, no slight Mr. Homnick, there was far more American in him than what's found in DC these days."
Rather doubleminded of you, considering Lincoln prosecuted America's largest war.
Claudia Monteverdi| 2.28.11 @ 9:32AM
My darling Jay,
It must have been a really, really great column since most of it went sailing clear over my little head.. The only thing I grasped, barely I fear that as a person with "great nobility of soul", (I'll skip the chatter please) I am to be enslaved by HE WHO RULES, ie: obliged to conform to YOUR concept of what is right for me, in the case you so paternally cite; carry an unwanted foetus to term, like it or not.......No thanks...
Yours forever,
Claudia
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 9:44AM
Claudia my dear pretentious purveyor of prose, I too hate when those unwanted foeti just show up all unannounced in women's wombs! How ghastly and utterly rude of them! However did they get there? Why, rip the little squatters out with a vacuum for heaven's sake! Cut off their limbs with a scapel! Burn their bodies with saline! How dare they take up residence in a woman's body without permission and without the woman even doing anything to encourage it!
Oh my dear dear sister how I do not envy you and other women who may wake one day to find a little foetus has taken up residence in your most sacred place of all places and you had nothing to do with it! Why hast women been cursed with these vile little demons who long to disrupt your next big promotion or bang-buddy arrangements? Cast them out like the little vermin they are!
Dan Hirsch| 2.28.11 @ 9:51AM
Claudia;
And the little baby inside you is to be killed because you will have a life threatening mental reaction to the thought of having to shop at Costco, if she survives? So your personal opinion overrules our agreed-on political system?
Do you teach school in Wisconsin? Maybe you should. Oh, sorry, I hear they're not hiring any more. It was a good gig if you could get it, and then keep it...
Do the ends justify the means?
Do your ends justify your means?
Occam's Tool| 2.28.11 @ 11:09AM
Dear Claudia,
we have enough of a culture of death, ma'am. It is eliminating workers who can pay for your retirement. If you don't want to raise kids, don't---but don't tax my kids to provide your caregivers in the nursing home, since you did nothing to contribute towards their Generations' raising and care.
Alan Brooks| 2.28.11 @ 10:48PM
"I am to be enslaved by HE WHO RULES"
Claudia, they want to sacrifice the living for the fetus-- theirs' is a zero-sum mentality. They were reared with the notion others must be crucified.
Dan Hirsch| 3.1.11 @ 4:16PM
ALAN!
RARELY DOES THE MOTHER DIE - THE BABY ALWAYS DOES!
YOU MORON.
All Amnerican American| 2.28.11 @ 9:34AM
Uhh, the Republican Party was founded "to vest liberty in the citizen and to curb the excesses of the state?" Really? And you are invoking Lincoln, perhaps the greatest tyrant in all of American political history, to say so?
No, the Republican Party rose from the ash-heap of the Whig party but their ideology was the same--strong central govt, a central bank, and a progressive income tax to fund "internal improvements," i.e. pet projects of rich donors. In Lincoln's time it was the railroads.
Conservtives I urge you to take a second look at Lincoln. Its hard to take folks seriously when on the one hand they talk about invoking 10A to defeat legislation like Obamacare but on the other they go ga-ga over Lincoln and buy into the Lincoln Myth. Its really past due and there's no excuse NOT to re-evaluate this man and what he did to destroy the Republic, States' rights, and his dictatorial consolidation of powers at the Executive level of govt.
Until Obama sends the troops to NYC to shut down FoxNews and arrests Glenn Beck, or issues a warrant for the arrest of John Roberts, or exiles Republican members of Congress, or has a secret police force round up ordinary Americans for disagreeing with him he's not half as bad as what Lincoln was.
Dan Hirsch| 2.28.11 @ 9:43AM
I have a day job so I can't fully take you apart - let's leave it at this: the income tax did not show up until 43 years after Lincoln's murder. I think you are just a touch over the top in trying to lay that one at his feet.
And another thing, you forgot the part about Lincoln sending spies into Ft. Sumter to fire the cannon to start his takeover of the many States...
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 9:58AM
OK Dan fire away. But maybe you can explain why my history books say the first income tax signed into law was signed by--wait for it--Abe Lincoln with a top rate of 10% on incomes over $10K? Lincoln signed it on July 1st, 1862. But please, do take that apart. (To be fair it was eliminated in 1872, but the precedent was set by Lincoln for a progressive income tax on all Americans).
As far as Ft Sumter goes, there were no spies, but Lincoln did provoke the South into firing the first shot. Instead of seeing Confederate peace commisioners in March 1861 who were to offer to pay for Federal property in the CSA, Lincoln maneuvered the South into firing the first shot.
From the Providence Daily Post, April 13, 1861: "For three weeks the administration newspapers had been assuring us Ft Sumter would be abandoned. Mr Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." (Providence is in RI. In the NORTH).
There were plenty more where that came from. But you go ahead, you go "take me apart." LOLzzz.
ncatty| 2.28.11 @ 3:17PM
Uh, what were the Confederate peace commissioners offering to do? Come back into the Union?
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 4:09PM
Uh, no. Actually what's not in most school history books is the CSA REPEATEDLY attempted to negotiate a peace agreement with the USA, but every time Lincoln refused to even acknowledge their existence.
In this particular instance they were going to offer to pay the USA for the USA's federal land (Ft Sumter) and allow the USA soldiers stationed there to return home. Instead Lincoln attempted to resupply the fort, provoking the desired response from the CSA. This lost the CSA a lot of sympathy in the North (wait, there was sympathy for the CSA in the NORTH? That's not in history books!) and also squashed any secessionist chatter among States like NJ, Ohio, PA, etc. (THEY considered secession??? No way!)
Lincoln wanted war and there was nothing that was going to stop him.
But if you really wanna ponder something maybe you should ponder why the only Western nation that had to resort to war to "end slavery" was the USA/CSA. All other Western nations ended slavery peacefully.
You could also ponder if ending slavery meant so much to Lincoln, why did he allow slave Staes VA, TN, AR, & NC to stay in the Union (until he wanted them to supply troops to launch a war against the Deep South).
If secession was a bad thing, why did Lincoln carve West VCA out of VA in the middle of the war???
ncatty| 2.28.11 @ 4:22PM
So the Confederate peace commisoners wanted to talk about a price for Ft. Sumter. Not about staying in the Union. Got it.
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 11:43AM
Hey thar Dan its been over an hour and a half and nuttin' but the sound of crickets coming from your way. I know you have a job and all and it takes away from your attempts at condensation on Amspec but I am waiting here man. Waiting to hear how you are going to tell me the income tax law Lincoln signed in 1862 wasn't really an income tax, or that Lincoln really didn't provoke the CSA into firing the first shot, or he didn't do any of the other things I said he did.
In all seriousness I too used to be afflicted with the Lincoln Myth. Even grew up in the North. However my search for truth overwhelmed any emotional connection I have to myths or fantasies or misrepresentations of history and/or historical figures.
Lincoln was a tyrant who trampled the Constitution. That's the truth and is not debatable. You can debate his reasons, but not his actions. Which I'd be fine with (debating his reasons and the consequences of such) but until you accept certain truths about Lincoln we can't move on to his reasoning behind it. For instance, the income tax. How can we dabate the evils of it or what it has spawned if you can't accept the truth that the very first one in the USA was signed into law by Lincoln?
axbucxdu| 2.28.11 @ 12:44PM
Greenback circulation. Legal tender laws. All precursors to the Federal Reserve, all instituted by Lincoln. When Wilson approved the creation of the Fed and income taxes, he was able to act on precedent: Lincoln's.
Sam Levi| 2.28.11 @ 1:10PM
You forgot that he suspended Habeus Corpus as well
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 11:36AM
It's always ironic to see a defender of the secessionist, slave master, traitorous Confederacy call himself an "All-American American." The true traitors to the United States of America. Real Americans will stick with Lincoln any day.
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 11:47AM
Hi RCV. Funny how after all this time folks still can't accept the truth about Lincoln and he is still defended on "conservative" sites. Anyway ya know something ironic? If I take your post and do this:
"It's always ironic to see a defender of the secessionist, slave master, traitorous united States of America call himself an Englishman. The true traitors to Great Britian. Real Englishmen will stick with King George any day."
I bet stuff like that was said about our Founders.
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 12:09PM
Real Englishmen did stick with England. The Founders were Americans.
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 12:31PM
Uhhh, EXACTLY!
NeilBJ| 2.28.11 @ 12:17PM
Real Americans should discover the truth before they stick with anybody. If all you know about Lincoln is what you were taught in school, then you owe it to yourself to read the contrary evidence.
I would suggest reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thoman J. DiLorenzo. There is also this website:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ori.....arch.html.
Louis Jenkins| 2.28.11 @ 12:26PM
I've read it NeilBJ, and it kinda makes the hair on my head, what's left of it, stand up. True, Mr. Lincoln wasn't what we're taught in school, but he did say he would preserve the Union no matter what. And he did. What a mess he left us in.
GENE HAUBER| 2.28.11 @ 7:02PM
WHAT WILL BE THE MESS OBAMA LEAVES US IN????
Claypoole| 2.28.11 @ 12:26PM
After Appomattox, Robert E. Lee said--I paraphrase--that, thereafter, there would be no stopping the power of the federal government. He was right. It is now time for the individual states to begin nullification of those federal laws that restrict their freedoms--right off hand, how about laws that prohibit drilling for and refining oil?
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 12:43PM
You are exactly correct and this is the crux of my argument. Up until Lincoln, Nullification was an understood and often-used tool of the States to keep a reign of the over-reaching Fed Govt. Secession was also understood as a tool to be used by the States if the charter they all agreed upon in 1791 was abused.
However due to (probable deliberate) misrepresentation of the WBTS and Lincoln himself, words like "nullification" and "secession" are seen as "dirty" by folks nowadays. They are threatening and well they should be--they should be threatening to the Fed Govt in DC that when they overstep their bounds the People and the States (always capitalized in the Founders Days, "united" NEVER was) have tools at their disposal to keep DC in its rightful, Constitutional place.
Nowadays you have seemingly honest conservatives who probably agree with a guy like me on 90% of stuff get seething mad when you dare speak truth about Lincoln. In fact they get all Alinsky-namey-cally mad too. Why? Because he was a "republican?" Look folks if we don't take an HONEST (no pun intended) look at our own, how can we be critical of others? If we feel threatened by the folks in DC who want to run health care or clamp down the itnernet or whatever because it is taking our freedoms away, we can't defend Lincoln's tyrannical ways and trampling of the Constitutional and liberty any longer.
Excuse one, excuse them all.
Sam Levi| 2.28.11 @ 1:14PM
Andrew jackson actually stopped nullification. It was initiated by John C. Calhoun, but Jackson threatened Federal force and Calhoun backed off, 1832.
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 3:14PM
Actually Sam depending on your perspective you might say teh Fed Govt backed down when they reduced the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1833.
Northern States also cited Nullification to void and not enforce the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.
ncatty| 2.28.11 @ 3:25PM
Yes Claypoole, if your Lee quote is accurate, then the secessionists put that Federal power in play.
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 4:13PM
Wow! This made me LOL! So its the secessionists fault that Lincoln trampled the Constitution IN HIS COUNTRY? (Remember, the CSA was a seperate nation). I've never heard a Lincoln apologist blame the CSA for Lincoln's power grab and the ensuing demise of our Republic. First time for everything I guess.
I guess thats the same logic that states women "ask for it" if they dress a little too provocatively for the rapist.
ncatty do you consier yourself a conservative? Serious question.
ncatty| 2.28.11 @ 4:28PM
You think secession is an implied right in the Constitution, and I do not. In your view then, any act by Lincoln can only be a "power grab." I disagree. However, I may have missed the States testing the matter in the Courts prior to seceding. Can you supply me that citation?
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 6:56PM
No doofus, secession was such an understood right in early America, not to mention Nullification, that States didn't look to the SCOTUS as final arbiter on laws passed by the Fed Govt. Yet another paradigm shift we can "thank" Lincoln for.
You can call a duck a chicken but that doesn't make it so. So you don't think what Lincoln did was a "power grab." OK then, you must not have any problems with Pres Obama then. If so you are either one very conflicted person or a partisan hack. This is my point and my problem with "repubicans." You're all too quick to excuse guys like Lincoln but whine and cry about Obama. Can't have it both ways. You're either for freedom or for tyranny but only as long as YOUR guy is the tyrant. Sounds like that fits you to a "t."
ncatty| 3.1.11 @ 9:22AM
Nothing but, in your words, "the sound of crickets", when I asked you for a citation.
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 6:10PM
The CSA was not a "separate country." There is no right of secession spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution specifies the sole means for amending the contract entered into; a contract with a implied unilateral right of abrogation at the whim of one party is illusory.
Lincoln preserved the Union and ended up freeing almost four million people from slavery. It's laughable to hear people who defend a regime that kept human beings in bestial conditions of slavery, owned by other human beings, complain about "infringements of liberty." Obviously, it is only the liberty of their privileged white ancestors that mattered to them.
All American American| 2.28.11 @ 6:50PM
Conversely, the right of secession is NOT specifically denied by the Constitution either. Your use of $10 words doesn't make your argument any more substantive than had you said it in plain English. The notion that the Founders would enter into a pact with NO WAY out for their individual States is patently absurd on its face. The peace agreement King George signed at the end of the Rev War was with 13 free and sovereign, independent States, NOT the United States of America. You are woefully, woefully ignorant of early American history.
If secession was so bad, please explain the Hartford Convention of 1814. Please explain West Virginia. Hell please explain our own founding.
That you invoke the sin of slavery when you can't argue facts is about what Lincoln apologists are left with. However you simply ignore Lincoln's own words that he was only ever interested in keeping the Union together and cared not one whim for the slaves. Well, except that is to keep them out of the territories in the West to keep them lily White. And to try and find somewhere, anywhere--Africa, Central America--to send them.
And the CSA was most definitely a seperate country. That you want to deny that so it fits your Lincoln Myth is par for the course.
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 7:24PM
Sorry, All-American, but I'm not "woefully ignorant" of early American history. I have an undergraduate degree in American history, and a law degree from Stanford, where I specialized in Constitutional Law, a field I practiced in for 35 years before retiring.
As with all constracts, the compact the states entered into could not be unilaterally abrogated; its provisions specify the sole means of amending it. If parties to a contract want to abrogate it, they must agree; otherwise, a contract is wholly illusory if one can walk away at will. The founders were well versed in the Common Law and knew these principles well.
With respect to the Hartford Convention, our knowledge of it is at best sketchy, since no minutes were taken. We do know that nothing came of talk of secession by New England, and the final resolution of the Convention called for several Amendments to the Constitution, an acknowledgement of the constitutional means for addressing dissatisfactions with the operation of the Union.
West Virginia proves nothing other than the desire of many Virginians to remain as part of the United States of America.
And I'm not arguing Lincoln's intentions with respect to slavery - I'm arguing the disingenuousness of people like you portraying themselves as defenders of liberty. You seem more concern with minor transgressions of the rights of certain humans (southern whites) and blindly unconcerned with the slavery the South imposed on almost 4 million of God's children.
You can engage in all the Gone With the Wind nostalgia you want for the old agrarian South, but the reality is that it is dead, and we're the better for its demise. The Union that emerged from that awful bloody civil war was stronger, more prosperous, and created an American nation that was able to meet and overcome the scourges of German Fascism and Soviet Bolshevism that a fragmented nation could never have done. You can have your Southern fantasies; back to the real world for the rest of us.
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 10:55PM
"and a law degree from Stanford, where I specialized in Constitutional Law, a field I practiced in for 35 years before retiring."
Which is why you are so clueless. They don't teach originalism in law school. They teach looking at precedents and with few exceptions they teach a living and breathing Constitution. So what some judge said 25 years ago is more important than what the Founders themselves said.
Your history degree should serve you better interpreting the Constitution as intended than your law degree.
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 11:28PM
They do teach originalism in law school, along with textualism, and discuss the merits, pitfalls and limitations of both. Anyone who has done intensive study of Constitutional law knows that "the Founders", assuming we can agree on who that encompasses -- does it include anti-Federalists, for example, who oppose the Constitution and held many of the same views as those who today call themselves The Federalist Society? -- held widely divergent views on many of the most fundamental questions.
I take it you did not go to law school, which accounts for your eagerness to dismiss its importance in understanding the Common Law methods of legal development, with which our Founders were well-acquainted.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 12:47PM
I didn't go to law school because I was too busy going to med school.
Originalism is a system of interpretation, a philosophical underpinning to how one approaches Constitutional questions. And it is a system that is virtually synonymous with conservatism. (Conservatives seek to conserve. Imagine that.) There are of course limits to what we can know about what the Founders intended and what the State Ratification Conventions thought they were getting. The originalist hopefully approaches the evidence objectively and does the best he can.
But whether secession was legal, for example, is not primarily a question of the Constitutional law you were taught in law school. It is primarily a historical question that involves looking at the debates at the Constitutional Convention, the debates in the various State Ratifying Conventions, examining the Federalist and the anti-Federalist Papers, etc.
If one does that the weight of the evidence supports the fact that the Southern States had a right to secede and the Feds had no right to stop it by force. The most compelling evidence of all is that three states, two of them Northern, expressly withheld the right to leave the Union in their ratification documents. This is a documented fact about which there can be no debate. You may not like it. You may think it highly unfortunate. But it remains a fact nonetheless.
RCV| 3.1.11 @ 2:51PM
The views of a minority of three states out of thirteen in ratifying a compact does not incorporate that minority provision into the compact.
I am glad you went to medical school. It is an honorable profession. But the Constitution is a legal document, and its provisions have legal meaning. The notion that the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution is "not primarily a legal question" is pure sophistry. We are a nation of laws, and the Constitution is our fundamental law.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 5:47PM
"But the Constitution is a legal document, and its provisions have legal meaning. The notion that the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution is "not primarily a legal question" is pure sophistry."
The Constitution is a legal document and its provisions do have legal meaning. Ultimately the meaning of the Constitution is a legal question. I did not say it is "not primarily a legal question." I said it is "not primarily a question of the Constitutional law you were taught in law school."
By this I mean that the "meaning" of the Constitution is not best addressed by looking at recent precedents and historical case law. It is best addressed by looking at what the Founders themselves wrote, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, etc.
Lawrence Tribe may be a brilliant "Constitutional Law" scholar, but he doesn't know diddly about original intent except to dismiss it as an interpretive strategy out of hand.
RCV| 3.1.11 @ 6:08PM
Like any legal provision, the first place to begin in any analysis is the text. Discerning the intent of the authors, the ratifiers, the contemporaneous commentators, is resorted to only where the text itself presents interpretive difficulties. Justice Scalia, no wild-eyed Laurence Tribe, has emphatically written of this.
Discerning intent of "the Founders" themselves is problematic on a number of levels. As I've said before, the Founders were no monolithic group, even if we could agree on who "the Founders" were. On the latter issue, for example, do we include Patrick Henry and other anti-Federalists, who wanted nothing to do with the Constitution? Do we include Thomas Paine, who inspired many to revolution but whose radical views would make John Adams wretch? Do we accept Thomas Jefferson's radical views on separation of Church and State? (He did, after all, express those views forcefully to Madison in the correspondence that convinced James M. that a Bill of Rights was a necessary addendum to the Consitution if it were to achieve the support of the Federalist-wobblers like Jefferson.) Do we lean heavily on the views of Alexander Hamilton, who favored a strong central government and would have been just as happy to confine the state governments to oblivion?
The fact is that the Constitution was ratified by the state assemblies of thirteen separate entities, and it is difficult to know what was in the minds of those who supported it, and whether they shared every thought of the various persons who helped write it. Having written briefs on the Second Amendment, for example, and having reviewed every word said in every state ratifying assembly as well as the writings of every one who contributed language to the amendment, or who debated its adoption, I can attest that I can easily assemble statements to support either of these propositions: (1) the Amednment was intended to prevent the government from enacting restrictions on personal gun ownership; or (2) the Amendment was intended to preserve the rights of the States to arm their militias should Congress fail to appropriate the necessary funds to do so.
The Founders were well versed in the Common Law, and knew well the processes and rules of interpretation that would guide the judiciary in its application of the written provisions they were enacting. They also were politicians of the first order, and in the best sense of the word. They knew they sometimes had to compromise on language, and indulge in vagueness to secure the necessary passage. There is, in sum, no one "original intent" that we can conveniently summon up to resove an issue. Were there, the process of ratification would have been far easier than it turned out to be.
And having worked with Laurence Tribe on a number of projects, I am quite confident that he knows far more about original intent than you do, whether or not he shares your view of its efficacy.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 11:20PM
This is in response to your post at 6:08 pm.
Original intent is not determined by the thoughts of any one Founder, but by the consensus that emerged. There were arch Federalist like Hamilton. There were others like George Mason who were not (actually the true federalists properly understood). Neither side got all they wanted.
The opinions of anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry are important because it was against objections like theirs that the Federalist case had to be made. So this bears on the issue of what the States thought they were getting. Both the anti-Federalists and the Federalist, for example, agreed with the doctrine of enumerated powers. (Do you?) So this shouldn't be a contentious issue.
Determining original intent is not always an easy business, and no one has said that it is. The point is that trying to determine original intent should be the starting off point in approaching constitutional questions.
"And having worked with Laurence Tribe on a number of projects, I am quite confident that he knows far more about original intent than you do, whether or not he shares your view of its efficacy."
I don't doubt that Laurence Tribe (sorry fro the misspelling) knows more about the law than I do, but as someone said on another thread, trying to argue the Constitution with a progressive is like arguing theology with an atheist. Actually, a better analogy would be trying to argue theology with a theological liberal, a Unitarian for example. They might know all about Christian doctrines, but if they don't agree on the importance of a specific creed, then there is no common ground.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 6:05PM
"The views of a minority of three states out of thirteen in ratifying a compact does not incorporate that minority provision into the compact."
All the States entered the Union on equal grounds. There were no special States with special rights. If one State had a right to secede because they withheld such a right then all States had a right by extension. By accepting the ratification as valid with the reservations, then the whole was accepting the reservations. (Did they send the ratification back to New York and say get rid of this offending reservation or it doesn't count?) Otherwise the ratifications of the three were not valid and the Constitution was never duly ratified in the first place.
RCV| 3.1.11 @ 7:32PM
Red, I've indulged your distortions of history long enough. There were no conditional ratifications or operative reservations. When Hamilton wrote to Madison, as secretary of the Virginia ratifying convention, that New York was considering making its ratification contingent on the right to withdraw, Madison shot back quickly with his clear understanding that ratification was all or nothing:
"I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this
principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other
States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.
This idea of reserving right to withdraw was started at Richmd. & considered as a conditional ratification which was itself considered as worse than a rejection."
Got that? Our Founders, unlike you, were well trained in the law, and knew the principles of contract law under the Common Law. As Madison stated as clearly as could be said,
"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." How's that for original intent?
You can spend your days pretending you live in the old South with independent sovereign States, but the rest of the educated world has moved on.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 8:46PM
You've indulged me? Dude, the quote you posted PROVES MY POINT. Regardless of Madison's protestations, New York DID ratify the Constitution with reservations (do you dispute this?), and it WAS considered a valid ratification by the whole (do you dispute this?). Therefore my post at 6:05 applies perfectly.
Madison's own state of Virginia also withheld the right to secede (do you dispute this?) so he was clearly outnumbered.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 8:48PM
"the rest of the educated world has moved on."
My how progressive of you. But I don't claim to be a progressive. I claim to be a conservative who wants to conserve things. Go figure.
RCV| 3.1.11 @ 10:02PM
The so- called reservations you speak of were not the right to secede but purported reservations conditioned on adoption of a Bill of Rights, which were adopted. And Madison 's expression of the applicable principles of law is absolutely right. Adoption of the Constitition eas "forever". Madison is surely more informative on original intent than you, Doctor.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 10:47PM
Again RCV, Madison was out numbered in his own state. And again, the Madison quote affirms my point, not yours. New York did ratify it with reservations despite Madison's protestations and the other states did accept this ratification as valid. These are facts that are beyond dispute. Learn to love them.
RCV| 3.2.11 @ 2:45PM
New York's ultimate ratification on July 28, 1788 was unconditional as Madison insisted it must be. It was accompanied by a list of amendments that the State proposed, and an expression that New York had the "impression" that the Bill of Rights would be adopted. You can read the text for yourself. It says nothing about rights of secession. Madison, the prime author of the Constitution got it right, and his is the most auhtoritative expression of original intent: ratification was "for ever".
Dan Hirsch| 2.28.11 @ 9:37AM
Jay,
If Lincoln later regretted ducking out to break a quorum; shouldn't his character, 146 years after Mr. Lincoln's murder, give more weight to his re-consideration rather than his momentary action?
And you were not referencing any specific action in particular, but it is damnably inescapable that there is only one 'denial of quorum' movement afoot today. So you may try to soften your intuition on Mr. Lincoln, but I say you got it wrong; surely Lincoln's later reflections would trump his impulsive, legalistic action.
And on the slavery thing, the Bible may have made room for the existence of slavery as the lifestyle of last resort. Methinks while the Book directs slaves to behave for self-preservation's sake, I'm betting it does not direct slavers to take and hold any of God's people (He made them all!) as slaves. You sort of glossed over that.
Many speaking against the Bible like to harp on its supposed tolerance of slavery because of those self-preserving admonitions. I say those are un-implied inferences!
Seek| 2.28.11 @ 11:50AM
The Bible was very much a product of a particular place and time. It should not be taken as a primary reference point on the debate over slavery in the U.S. Supporters and enemies of slavery alike relied upon the Bible for justification.
Dan Hirsch| 3.1.11 @ 4:31PM
Seek;
I trust you are confirming my distrust of using the Book as justification for or against slavery. I did finish with "...those are un-implied inferences!"
My meaning is that the Author of the Bible (I guess-I do NOT know God's will.) probably did not intend to justify slavery, but those wishing to justify slavery would interpret the Book's commendation of the slave's response to his servitude as justifying the slaveholder. It doesn't. If one reads it there, he's seeing 'things.'
DH
Sean| 2.28.11 @ 12:04PM
Who needs slavery when you have the income tax. Much more efficient.
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 12:52PM
So it was somehow natural that Mr. Homnick was picked to play Lincoln since he is a "conservative" commentator? So I take it Mr. Homnick thinks Lincoln's actions and legacy were "conservative."
So what part of it was conservative? Trampling the Constitution? Destroying the Old Republic as intended by the Founders and replacing it with a centralized modern state? Burning Atlanta? Killing and terrorizing civilians in an intentional total war campaign? Help me out here.
That Lincoln hagiography such as this continues to make it on to supposedly conservative sites like AmSpec is embarrassing.
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 6:13PM
You list the supposed sins of the Unionists but ignore the bestiality of the "liberty-loving" Confederates who held 3.9 human beings in bestial slavery, bought and sold their children like livestock. It's your morality that's embarrasing, not the respect of the American people for Lincoln.
Clint| 2.28.11 @ 7:22PM
Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 7:30PM
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." ~ Lincoln
Deal with it RCV.
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 7:41PM
Not sure what your point is. Of course Lincoln's first priority was to preserve the Union. He was the President of the United States. His preference always was to have slavery abolished by choking off its spread to the new territories rather than through war. It was the Southern secessionists who precipitated the war, not Lincoln.
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 8:06PM
Secession DID NOT "precipitate" war. Secession is an inherently peaceful act. It was Lincoln's violent resistance to secession that caused the war.
Clint| 2.28.11 @ 8:10PM
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Washington, D.C., March 4, 1861:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 8:11PM
"Not sure what your point is."
You brought up slavery, not me. If the WBTS had been a crusade on the part of the North to free the slaves then your moral grandstanding would be germane, but we both agree it wasn't so it isn't.
RCV| 2.28.11 @ 11:38PM
Slavery is highly relevant when the purported excuse for Southern secession is abridgment of liberty. Secession was not a peaceful act; it was accompanied by the initial attacks by Confederates on the forces of the United States of America, which were authorized and empowered under the terms of the Constitution. The secessionist forces, in contrast, were usurping powers explicitly prohibited to them under that Constitution, which you falsely purport to revere.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 12:56PM
The act of secession IS inherently peaceful, as opposed to the act of revolution, for example, which is generally not. Lincoln attempted to reprovision soldiers in a fort that was no longer in Federal territiory. This is an agressive act of war. But beyond that, Lincoln was intentionally trying to provoke the first shot to sway public opinion in the North. Many in the North wanted to just let the South leave. Had Lincoln done so, the Border States likely would not have seceded. The Border States only seceded once it was clear Lincoln intended to use force.
Did you oppose the break-up of the Soviet Union? Should the USSR have forcefully prevented the Republics from leaving?
RCV| 3.1.11 @ 2:46PM
Secession, as I have said, violated the provisions of the Constitution. Article I Section 10 expressly prohibited the States from raising Armies or entering into compacts with other states. South Carolina was acting unconstitutionally. Troops of the United States of America had every right to be at Fort Sumter, federal territory. The rebels fired on them and started the shooting war.
The Soviet Union was not formed by the consensual act of the people forming that union. Your attempts to equate our country with that Bolshevik monstrosity further demonstrates the anti-American nature of your outlook. I hope that you and your allies let the American people know your views on this issue, so they can give you the public rejection you deserve.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 5:59PM
"Article I Section 10 expressly prohibited the States from raising Armies or entering into compacts with other states."
A "State" did not. The duly seceded sovereign and independent State of South Carolina did.
You are begging the question. You are essentially saying that secession was prohibited because it was prohibited. First you must establish that it actually was prohibited. Good luck with that.
JimH| 2.28.11 @ 1:32PM
How about adding the draft to the list of Lincoln accomplishments? This was the cause of the Irish anti-black riots in NY.
Red Phillips | 2.28.11 @ 7:53PM
"Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it." ~ Dr. Donald Livingston (emphasis mine)
Rich Rostrom| 3.1.11 @ 6:48PM
Red Phillips: Livingston is talking nonsense.
No one in ante-bellum America accepted the doctrine of unilateral state secession, except white Southerners who thought secession would be necessary to protect slavery. The Federalist Party was essentially killed off by the mere allegation that some Federalists had secretly discussed secession at the Hartford Convention.
"secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section..."? I don't believe Livingston can find a single statement by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Monroe, Marshall, Story, JQ Adams, Jackson, Clay, Webster, Benton, Fillmore, Crittenden, Harrison, Buchanan, George or De Witt Clinton, Sam Houston, or Polk declaring state secession to be a legal option.
The Declaration of Independence asserts the natural right of revolution by the whole people; it does not assert a legal right of secession by any fraction of the people that want to defy the common government.
Robert E. Lee himself said that "Secession is nothing more than revolution."
The Upper South delayed secession for four months in the delusional hope that Lincoln would yield to their pressure to "compromise" on slavery issues (that is, cave in to the Deep South) and that the Deep South would rescind secession. Fort Sumter made certain that the Union would not be restored except by force; and the Upper South then joined with the other slave states - as Virginia, at least, had pledged to do in January 1861.
Lincoln did not "decide on a war of coercion" by himself. Almost everyone in the North agreed that secession was illegal rebellion, to be suppressed by force if necessary. When Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down rebellion, his great adversary Sen. Stephen Douglas told him he was mistaken - he should call for 200,000!
As for Di Lorenzo - he is a crank, and his claims have been refuted in detail by real historians.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 7:43PM
Rich, do you know who Donald Livingston is? He is a well respected Prof. of Philosophy (Emeritus) at Emory University. The article this quote is from appeared in Chronicles Magazine, the flagship magazine of paleoconservatism. Dr. Livingston does not talk off the top of his head, and Chronicles does not publish fluff. I would be very careful about asserting that he doesn't know what he is talking about and that your knowledge is superior.
I don't have time to deal with all the errors in your diatribe right now, but for one thing, the American "Revolution" was an act of secession. We were not attempting to overthrow the King of England and place Washington (or whatever) on the Throne. We were attempting to sever our political ties to England and forge off on our own while leaving King George right where he was. This was clearly an act of secession, not revolution. America was founded by an act of secession, but you are seemingly horrified that the States might latter do the same thing. Inconsistent much?
RCV| 3.1.11 @ 10:08PM
No. Americans had no representation and had not consented to a Constitutional system. You seem unable to grasp that rather important distinction.
And there is nothing remotely "conservative" about supporting Southern insurrectionists against the established constitutional republic. The position may be right or wrong, but it was not then and is not now "conservative" by any stretch of the word.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 10:37PM
RCV, the South was attempting to preserve (conserve) the political order established by the Founders. Lincoln was attempting to establish by a new revolution a new political order. He was attempting to remake the US into a post-French Revolution modern unitary state. The South's understanding was pre-modern. (This is why Lord Acton and Pope Pius IX supported the South.) Lincoln wanted a modern order. (This is why Bismarck and Marx supported Lincoln.)
That the South was the conservative side in the WBTS is obvious and hardly worth debating and you know it. Otherwise you wouldn't be telling me I need to "move on" like a good little progressive.
RCV| 3.1.11 @ 11:30PM
Sorry, Red. What the South was trying to do was contrary to the Founder's constitutional order. Fortunately for all of us, they failed. That bestial horror show they operated for so long was shut down, and thank God for it.
Red Phillips | 3.1.11 @ 11:37PM
"What the South was trying to do was contrary to the Founder's constitutional order."
So sayeth RCV. Hey, I bet if you stamp your feet while typing in all caps it will make your assertion even more true.
RCV| 3.2.11 @ 12:22AM
I think we've exhausted the topic, but I enjoyed the conversation.
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 2:41AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 6:15PM
It's always ironic to see a defender of the secessionist, slave master, traitorous Confederacy call himself an "All-American American." The true traitors to the United States of America. Real Americans will stick with Lincoln any day.