The Colorado Confederatarian

UPDATE, 2/12/09 at 9:39 in th' p.m.: Reeb replies in th' comments box below.  'N I commend him fir it.  Stay tuned.

______________________________________________

Richard H. Reeb is a Claremontista blogger who blogs at John Andrews’ Claremontista “Backbone America” .  Bein’ Claremontistas, Reeb ’n Andrews are devotees of wut some people call the “Lincon Cult” , that assembly of faithful Yankee neocons who, followin’ th’ intellectual gurus of th’ cult, Leo Strauss and Harry V. Jaffa, thank ol’ Abe is jus’ th’ peachiest indervidual t’ come along since Jesus Christ. I write about th' Claremont Institute here, n’ y’all kin check my archive that contains blog entries that have t’ do with ‘em Claremont boys.

Ohn Feb. 9, 2009 Backbone America posted a blog entry by Reeb entitled “Abraham Lincoln truly was a great man.”  How great, y’all ask?  Reeb’s openin’ paragraph says a little sumthin’, I thank, ‘bout how effervescent them cult members all is ‘bout POTUS 16:

In his famous Lyceum Speech in 1839, Abraham Lincoln expressed his hope that George Washington would always be revered. Little did Lincoln know that he too would be revered and that more would be written about him than anyone except Jesus Christ.

‘L, none of them reverent tomes has anythin’ t’do with the actual truth ‘bout Abraham Lincoln. Ohn th’ contrary, they merely th’ result of two thangs: 1) th' truth of Barnum’s dictum that “there is a sucker born every minute”; and 2) th’ same kinda irrational hero worship we’ve recently observed in th’ fenomenon of “Honest Obe”, Barack Obama.  See, wut happens is, folks git in th’ grip of some bad idear or of some intense emoshun that is fixed upohn some charismatic feller, ‘n it makes ‘em do, say ‘n write all sorts loopy thangs.  Now, t’ be shore, thar are more dispashunate treatments of our “American Caesar” out thar ohn th’ library bookshelves, but so much of what has been written has indeed been marked by th’ kinda Messianic fervor in which th’ Claremonsters are complicit.  All of it started, it seems with th’ propergaindists of the day who made all these loopy comparisons ‘twixt Lincoln and Our Lord.  Outfits like Claremont simply carry ohn th’ tradition. Reeb continyurs:

Lincoln’s fame is deserved. He did not run for President simply to hold the office. Rather, he sought the office in order to deal with the nation’s greatest crisis.

“Infamy”, I thank, is th’ better word.  Truth is, Lincoln was little more thin a corrupt and venal railroad lawyer who stumbled into th’ presidency much in th’ same way Bill Clinton did, ‘n thin further stumbled into th’ destruction of th’ old constitutional order - sorry, I mean th; “Declaration of Independence-inspired transformation of our nation” - for which he has become famous.  As fir that “greatest crisis”, well, it all centered around a secession. You know, like what th’ 13 original colonies did in the late 18^th century.  Ohn th' other haind, it cud be argued that th' real “crisis” wuz that Washington DC had become London.

When the Civil War ended, the nation finally ended slavery, the institution that massively contradicted our nation’s principles.

See? “Contradicted our nation’s principles.” Whenever y’all see such verbiage from a Claremonster, know right away that it is code language havin’ t’ do with they radical egalitarian readin’ of th’ Declaration of Independence, which I tawk about in this blog entry linked above.  Buried somewhar in-att blog entry is a lank t’ a piece by League of the South’s Mike Tuggle, which is must readin’, so I’ll lank it here fir y’all.  Th’ Declaration of Independence ain’t a governin’ document in th’ first place, but as Tuggle shows th' bottom line is-att it dohn’t really say wut th’ Jaffian egalitarians say it do.   Reeb:

Not only that, the end of slavery invigorated commerce and caused a steady rise in the standard of living for millions of Americans. Whereas the nation once had enslaved nearly half of its population and had provided limited opportunities for much of the other half, after war’s end it turned its energies to an industrial revolution that made America rich and powerful.

‘L, there’s a lot t’ unpaick here.  First of all, Reeb apparhs t’ have committed the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy here, as he fallaciously posits *causation* in the neck-sus of slavery’s abolition and “invigorated commerce.”   Nor do Richard menshun th’ fact that an “invigorated commerce” wuz *alreddy* ohn th’ rise before slavery’s abolition.  Maybe it wud have been even MORE vigorous had not th’ humble Tyrant from Illinois launched a devastatin’ war-att took 600,000+ lives and laid waste t’ th’ South.  I wunder why that seems not-ta have crossed ol’ Richard’s mahnd.  Wutever th' ainswer, Reeb seems-ta assume-att th’ industrial revolution wuz a positive good fir America, but us neo-agrarian Southern types wud say he’s begged th’ question in a big way. A discussion of-att thar particular issur, however, would take us beyond th’ scope-a this here discussion.  He goes ohn:

Millions of Americans admire Lincoln for his statesmanship, yet some on the extreme left and right accuse him of hypocrisy, offenses against the Constitution and even tyranny. These charges are false.

‘N th’ fallacies continuer: “Millions of Americans admire. . .” Argumentum ad populum.   “. . .some of the *extreme* left and right”.  Poisoning the well. (We certainly kin write off what th’ “extremists” have t’ say.) Ho-hum.

But the charges ain’t false.  Lincoln, in fact, wuz a hypocrite. Here are just a couple of exaimples: 1) In 1848, he wrote:

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.

My wut a diffurnce 13 years made. Almost makes one thank that by 1861 ole Abe came under such strohng outside influences that it made him compromise his principles in a big ol’ way. Power? Money? A “legacy?” All three?

2) Joseph Fallon writes of Lincoln’s religious hypocrisy (combined with demagoguery) here.  Lincoln wuz much like Bill Clinton is-iss regard.

‘N further, is the charge false-att Lincoln committed “offenses against the Constitution and even tyranny?” ‘L, it’s funny ol’ Richard wud say so here, since he contradicts himself in a paragraph below, where he writes-att Lincoln “exercised ‘extra constitutional’ power to protect freedom.” Well, a power exercised “extra” (= “outside of”) th’ Constitution is by definition “against” the Constitution, and is tharfore an exercise of “tyrannical” power. Reeb hems and haws ‘bout this below, mentioning only one specific, that of the arguably constitutional act of suspendin’ habeas corpus durin’ wartime. But ol’ Richard fails t’ give us th’ whole panoplee of Abe’s ururpations. Here is list fir th’ uneducated.   Next, Richard writes:

The black power movement and remnants of Confederate sympathizers would seem to have little in common, but in fact both have denounced Lincoln. Both believe that Lincoln didn’t really care as much about freeing Americans of African descent as he did in wielding power. Their common error, to put it charitably, is to ignore the circumstances in which Lincoln’s statesmanship was employed.

“Remnants of Confederative sympathizers?” Yes, “we few. We happy few.” Like Henry V’s raggly army at Agincort. Like the 7,000 non-bowers God has reserved for Hisseff. I giss we kin accept the label, speshly since accordin’ t’ a recent Zogby poll 1 in 5 Americans believes in th’ right of a state t’ secede from th’ Union. Not a bad percentage after almost 150 years-a Yankee propergangder and us bein' whittled down t' a "remnant."  But I die-griss

So, Reeb’s a- tellin’ us att th’ next few paragraphs’ll be devoted t’ enlightnin’ all us Confederate remnants and black lefty boobs-att Lincoln didn’t really mean what he wrote t’ Horace Greeley in 1862:

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

 

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." **If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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 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 don't believe it would help to save the Union.

Naw, we cain’t take Lincoln at his word here. Need-ta “explain”, rather, them “circumstances in which Lincoln’s statesmanship was employed.” So here he goes:

In his campaign against the spread of slavery following passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, Lincoln found himself in the middle between passionate abolitionists who disregarded public opinion, and pro-slavery men who were determined to spread slavery wherever they could.

 

There was no majority in favor of the abolition of slavery, but many Americans were determined to prevent domination of the country by slavemasters. This position was grounded in the judgment that slavery was wrong and, though too powerful to be abolished, must be prevented from spreading.

 

We need to understand that when slavery was legal most people were slow to turn against it. Lincoln walked a fine line in the North between those few who favored abolition and many more who hated slavery because it had brought Negroes into the country.

 

Lincoln contended that slavery was wrong because it denied the fundamental rights of human beings, and that its expansion ultimately threatened the rights of whites no less than blacks. Color may have been an excuse but it hardly limited the desires of slave masters.

 

Lincoln was reviled by northern Democrats for declaring in his 1858 Senate campaign in Illinois that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Lincoln invoked that Biblical passage to condemn the efforts of slavemasters to make slavery national. He did not call for the abolition of slavery where it existed.

 

Lincoln did not originally support full civil rights for those held as slaves for such a goal was not yet possible. It was enough that slavery should be restricted to where it already was.

 

Fortunately, more Americans opposed than supported the spread of slavery and even more the attempt at secession by 11 southern states. While both abolitionists and Democrats wavered in the face of rebellion, Lincoln never abandoned his determination to preserve the Union or his commitment to the ultimate extinction of slavery.

 

After hundreds of thousands of Americans became casualties in a terrible conflict, it became clear to Lincoln that the war could no longer be fought simply to preserve slavery. As a war measure, as well as to propound a greater purpose, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in rebel states and thereby encouraged them to abandon their masters and even to join the Union Army.

Now, it’s anybody’s giss as t’ how any of th’ foregoin’ mixture of historical fact ‘n Reeby interpretation gainsays th’ “Confederate remnant/black power movement’s” belief-att “Lincoln didn’t really care as much about freeing Americans of African descent as he did in wielding power.” The letter t’ Greeley says it all, really, and nothin’ ol’ Richard writes above proves anythin’ other thin’ th’ fact that Lincoln wuz a politician’s politician, able t’ employ lofty abolitionists demagoguery ‘n shrewd political tactics (e.g., the Emancipation Proclamation) in order-ta achieve one goal, ‘n one goal alone, th’ defeat of th’ Confederacy ‘n thus th’ restoration of “national authority.” **National authority** - that wuz th word he used t’ describe his sole concern in his letter t’ Greeley. Not “justice”. Not “equality.” Not “liberty.” Not "abolition". ‘N certainly not “the rule of law.” But “national authority” – whose marriage t’ monied interests had already been consummated.  Lincoln knew wut wuz at stake here, ‘n att’s why he no longer believe in th’ right of secession as he did in 1848.

Lincoln was no usurper, but he did not hesitate to use his powers to preserve the Union. When the Maryland state legislaturemet to vote for secession, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and arrested all those who intended to take that fateful step. The loss of Maryland would have isolated the nation’s capital behind rebel lines.

Yesirree, Lincoln wuz a usurper, par excellence, as the DiLorenzo article ‘bout Lincoln’s abuses lanked above does show. His actions in Maryland in preventing a *legal* secession is yet one more instance.

In his trenchunt essay Hijacking the Conservative Movement, Joe Sobran notes how even some of Lincoln’s staunchest modern supporters implicitly acknowledge that he “usurped” th’ existin’ constitutional order:

Claiming sovereignty for the Federal Government, Lincoln felt justified in violating the Constitution in order to “save the Union” — by which he meant “saving” Federal sovereignty. One of the best-kept secrets of American history is that many if not most Northerners thought the Southern states had the right to secede. This is why Lincoln shut down hundreds of newspapers and arrested thousands of critics of his war. He had to wage a propaganda war against the North itself.

 

Were you told this in your history classes? Neither was I. We are still being told that Lincoln’s cause was the cause of liberty; just as we are told that he was the friend of the black man, though he wanted the freed slaves to be sent abroad, leaving an all-white America. Lincoln had a dream too, but it wasn’t Martin Luther King’s.

 

Lincoln achieved what the Princeton historian James MacPherson calls “the Second American Revolution,” giving the Federal Government virtually full authority over the internal affairs of the states. Columbia’s George Fletcher credits him with creating “a new Constitution.” A third historian, Garry Wills of Northwestern University, says he “changed America,” transforming our understanding of the Constitution.

 

Mind you, these are not Lincoln’s critics — they are his champions! Do they listen to themselves? They are saying exactly what Jefferson Davis said: that Lincoln was abandoning the original Constitution! But they think this is a high compliment. Lincoln himself claimed he was “saving” the old Constitution. His admirers, without realizing it, are telling us a very different story.  (Emphasis ol' Jones'.)

A usurper he wuz ‘n will always remain. Continyun ohn, Reeb writes:

As political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa has written, President Lincoln in dealing with rebellion exercised extra constitutional power to protect freedom, in contrast to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who may have been more scrupulous but was dedicated to preserving slavery. That made all the difference.

‘N so, from th’ horse’s mouth we git an admission that Lincoln’s actions were “extra constitutional.” I’d say “case closed” in favor of th’ Confederate’s argument and end my response right here, but I have t’ commint as well on this Jaffareebian argumint that “freedom” is what ensued from all this. That has t’be th’ most laughable part of th’ Claremonster’s apology. Freedom for whom? Well, yes, fir th’ slaves, but as th’ title of an absolutely indipensibel book by libertarian economist/historian Jeffery Hummel suggests, it wuz at th’ same time Emancipating Slaves (and) Enslaving Free Men.  Hummel is one of a number of scholars who convincin’ly argue that slavery’s days in th’ South were numbered 'n that any war to free the slaves wuz unnecessary.   That war was launched, rather, to force th' secedin' states baick into th' Union, as Lincoln sed it was all about in his letter t' Greeley.   But wut happened wuz, yes, the emancipation of the black man, but principally the loss of liberty fir th’ South, as H. L. Mencken noted:

But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

But this here loss of freedom, as Hummel argues, would come t’ be felt by th’ entire nation, ‘n more so as time went ohn, th’ centralizin’ nature of Lincoln’s War destroyin’ th’ old federalism ‘n usherin’ in th’ age of th’ American Empire. We all know wut happens t’ liberty in empires, ‘n today we observe our liberties fadin’ away further under th’ “rule” of both th’ imperial Dems ‘n th’ imperial Repubs, who are equally plagued by th’ Lincolnian pathology.

Naw, freedom wasn’t the result of wut Lincoln did. Statism wuz. A statism that wuz t’ receive additional infusions of power under such American strongmen as FDR.   Lincoln and Franklin: two peas in a pod.  I jus' laff, tharfore, when I see Repubniks git so exercised whin Obama puts ohn th' Lincolnian mantle.

In lite-a all this, I jus’ have t’ laff as well at Reeb’s concludin’ paragraph:

This Thursday, Feb. 12,we should honor Lincoln on the 200^th anniversary of his birth, for he well deserves the titles of Savior of the Union and Great Emancipator. He saved America for freedom.

Keep yir version of “freedom”, ye damn fool libruls ‘n no-account neocons. We secesh remnants will keep ours - and practice it whether y’all make it legal or illegal – while we take the long, long view of history, at th' side of others whom ye’ve marginalized, such as th’ Serbs. As General Robert E. Lee wrote, “it is history that teaches us to hope,” and it is in akkordance with such hope that we look forward t’ the day that either we or our descendants daince on y’all’s graves.

Naw, Richard, count me out. Ohn Thursday, Feb. 12 'n th' follerin' Monday, I plan t’ fly th’ First National, have me some Rebel Yell whiskey, ‘n smoke me a Fonseca Cubano Limitado CEE-gar in honor of th’ Foundin’ Fathers (includin’ Lee’s relative, George Washington), th' anti-Federalists, th' Southron’s and they beloved Confederacy (with special honor goin’ to’ South Carolina), and of men such as Lee and Jackson, each of whom, like I've sed before, wuz four times th’ man Abraham Lincoln wuz.

S. Jones