More of the Way We Are Now
by Clyde N. Wilson
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
(The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my parent company or any of its affiliated and subsidiary companies.)
For a government of the people to flourish the citizens should be tough, skeptical, and independent and the leaders far-seeing and patriotic. None of these conditions exist in the United States today.
“Independent” Kosovo copies an earlier U.S. policy, the state governments in the South during Reconstruction—a vicious minority held in power by military occupation. Republicans never change.
It would appear that the bit of order now reasserting itself in Iraq is the result of the U.S. turning over the job to Saddam Hussein’s former men who kept order before the U.S. invasion. Aren’t these the same “Sunni insurgents” who were blamed for all of the post-invasion problems? Would it not have been easier to have left things alone to begin with?
Whenever some fellow is arrested for a violent crime, it is invariably reported that he has a long “rap sheet” of previous arrests and convictions for violent crimes, some of them quite recent. Nobody any longer bothers to ask why he is not in jail.
Remember the time when the local clergymen, newspaper editors, and professionals were well educated members of the international republic of letters and at the same time deeply rooted members and defenders of their communities? Now the local masters are ignoramuses and servilely follow orders from the imperial bureaucracy.
And most police chiefs now are smarmy bureaucratic operators and PR men rather than men dedicated to protecting their communities. Most bishops and college presidents have a similar relationship to their duties.
My late and much lamented golden retriever Georgia knew more real history than any Straussian “scholar,” just from conversations she heard around the house. And she had a lot more character, dignity, and good will.
With George Bush you can never be sure whether it’s intended disaster or just incompetence.
Obama’s election will be a triumph of affirmative action—in more ways than one. We have already had affirmative action judges and an affirmative action chief of staff/secretary of state. The presidency was just a matter of time.
Multiculturalism and “diversity” are proclaimed to rest on a desire to promote tolerance. Obviously, on the face of it, they rest on hostility, envy, and a desire for unearned benefits.
America has far too many “intellectuals” and not nearly enough thinkers.
Identity politics: If Obama were all white, you never would have heard of him. If he were all black, he would not be so popular.
It is reported that 47 million “Americans” are without medical insurance and an even larger number are at or below the poverty line. There are indeed many Americans of the working poor who are struggling daily to make an adequate living, and this is indeed shameful in so rich a country. However, this condition will never be improved as long as the federal government is in charge and as long as poor “Americans” are constantly imported from Mexico and “American” skilled workers from Asia.
The middle class has been beleaguered and shrinking for at least 40 years, but nobody has bothered to notice it in the current election campaign.
The American Revolution and the independence of the 13 States was thought of as a unique opportunity in history—to establish a regime in which rulers were servants of the people rather than the other way around, which had been the universal experience of mankind. The glory of LINCOLN is essentially this—that he destroyed the anomalous experiment in control of government and restored the mastership of the rulers.
“The religious ideal of forgiveness is more profound and more difficult than the rational virtue of tolerance.” —Reinhold Niebuhr
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Brian Fagan on 7 March 2008:
Reminds me of myself – I’m BETTER than most (except at this site) on the planet… so I always say – yes in behalf of – the charitable trust – the z family and the z group of companies and organizations…
and it’s great – funnily enough – i always get discounts.
___ oh, yes would you like to meet the prince… ? ok.
2 Comment by Brian Fagan on 7 March 2008:
“For a government of the people to flourish the citizens should be tough, skeptical, and independent and the leaders far-seeing and patriotic. None of these conditions exist in the United States today.”
-Clyde
Yes… let me add to mine above- only ME and a few others from after clyde’s generation… as well as his & fleming’s … are yet THOSE…
i wish of course being WHO i am … it were otherwise… “as if” I could depend Actually on process… and obama & H –
I WISH … but it’s not reality.
it’s like a recurring dream of mine in reality at night i can’t wake up from… even though i wish it were otherwise… it’s the reins… for the short-term for ALL i should grasp.
i don’t like it. i’d rather be sunning off the coast. … whatever? … it’s all good?
3 Comment by robert m. peters on 7 March 2008:
Dr. Wilson,
Your words:
“For a government of the people to flourish the citizens should be tough, skeptical, and independent and the leaders far-seeing and patriotic. None of these conditions exist in the United States today.”
Just this morning I was musing about “higher law” and the people in their sovereign capacity: in convention in their state. I was thinking that today, far to many hold that the nine divines of the Supreme Court can make such determinations, that the “leader” can make such determinations with his signing statements or his executive orders, that Congress can do such with its “resolutions” in majority or finally that ‘the people” as some mass can do it with “the vote.”
But then I thought, even if we could ever get to or back to “the people in convention in their state” where actions are nullified, constitutions are ultimately amended and states secede from unions and join others, we, those people, simply lack, in post-modernity, the requisite virtues: with no notion of the fall, we see no need of redemption; and where men do not see the need for redemption, they lack the humility which is the gateway to faith which, in turn, is the bedrock of courage. We even lack the sense of “nobility” which our pagan ancestors such as Marcus Aurelius had. ( I note that Lee, the great Christian general, also admired Marcus Aurelius.)
Much must, its seems, happen before citizens become tough, skeptical and independent and before out of those citizens there come far-sighted and patriotic leaders.
4 Comment by Brian Fagan on 7 March 2008:
does anyone take mr. peters seriously besides him and his god?
5 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 7 March 2008:
Mr. Fagan, your silliness contributes nothing to this or any discussion. Please take your childish fantasies elsewhere.
6 Comment by Sebastian on 7 March 2008:
In all fairness to Her Ladyship, Hillary made some noise about the collpase of the middle-class a few months back but has yet to explain who she means or what she intends to do about it. I suppose this new talk of renegotiating NAFTA is part of the plan. I naively entertained the hope that if she means to socialize medicine (a policy I do not support but one I can buy myself out of), she would be forced to actually close the border and account for who is an American and who is not. The more I see her pandering to Mexicans, however, he more I see the folly of my hope. As the middle-class is the backbone of a republic in classical liberalism from Smith to Locke and the Federalists, I think it’s safe to acknowledge that Washington wants to do away with it and develop a Latin American have/have nots polarity. The poor can be worked into a resentful frenzy come election time and the elites, increasingly behind gates – just as I saw as a child in Mexico when my family lived there – purchase bodyguards and drivers to take them to private airports, safe in the knowledge that a few scraps tossed from the limo will keep the unwashed at bay. Having spent some in Latin America, I really do see our future as a Brasil/Mexico hybrid.
7 Comment by Maciano on 7 March 2008:
@ Mr. Clyde Wilson
What do you think is the cause for this: “America has far too many “intellectuals” and not nearly enough thinkers.”
- Has the culture denigrated so much that smart kids can’t blosson?
- Are people lazy, in an intellectual sense, therefore unwilling to do the hard study work, needed for intellectual discourse?
- How original can thoughts be, if the powers-that-be decided that all debate should take place between liberals and neocons — all others are deemed anti-Americans, Nazi’s, crackpots, weirdo’s and/or other manifestations of “evil in our time”.
Anyone who solves the intellectual problem can save the West from the coming implosion. I believe that the West can only be saved, if it maintains its intellectual ascendency, its main power was always its innovative strength: originality, creativity. The West always wins, if it stays ahead of the rest. However, they’re catching up fast nowadays, and they’re hungry. We’re not. I tell this constantly to my contemporaries — they couldn’t care less, though.
So, where did all the intellectuals go? I’ve been wondering myself.
8 Comment by roger on 7 March 2008:
Mr Wilson writes: “With George Bush you can never be sure whether it’s intended disaster or just incompetence.”
Well, I don’t think that Bush is stupid at all. On the contrary: We are stupid, because we don’t understand that Bush is a liar and a con man. As for the intended disaster: That depends upon your wievpoint. For the common man, the war in Iraq is a disaster. But Bush does not care about the common man. Bush is bought by the military-industrial complex. The purpose of the war in Iraq is to steal money from the american taxpayer and fatten the coffers of the military-industrial complex. From the point of wiev of the military-industrial complex, the war in Iraq is a blessing.
McCain promises one hundred years of war and sings ‘Bomb bomb bomb .. bomb bomb Iran’. McCain is obviously the darling of the military-industrial complex. I believe that McCain already is selected as the next US president.
9 Comment by Dominic on 7 March 2008:
These articles ring completely true, and at least partly help us answer “what happened here” when we look at the sludge pile that our nation is becoming.
10 Comment by Edward on 7 March 2008:
“America has far too many “intellectuals” and not nearly enough thinkers.”
Most of the people in the forefront of Western media today appear unwilling and unable to discuss first principles but are very quick to lecture us on what the right and just path is. If all political questions are essentially philosophical questions and most philosophical questions are also theological questions then it makes little sense to talk about the first without having any foundation in the second and third. Because of this we have ‘intellectuals’ who do not even understand the premises and assumptions they implicitly hold while writing and discussing politics. We think shallowly, if at all, and thus go nowhere but where the more powerful ideologues choose to lead us.
11 Comment by Fred Breisch on 7 March 2008:
Mr. Peters and Dr. Wilson are right on from my perspective. We live in interesting times. Any country that is willing to recruit, train and then deploy women into its armed forces can hardly lay claim to the high ground. It amazes me how many men simply shrug their shoulders about this issue.
Our local clergymen, newspaper editors and intellectuals do indeed simply follow convention, and while some would say they are still, well educated; I would say they are well indoctrinated in the moral and ethical standards of multiculturalism and diversity.
Where have the honorable and ethical men gone? I have heard PBS is doing a special on Robert E. Lee, sometime in the near future. I hope they do him justice (don’t hold your breath). I wonder what he would think of the “leaders” of our era.
Cheers,
12 Comment by robert m. peters on 7 March 2008:
Dr. Wilson,
You your words:
“Multiculturalism and “diversity” are proclaimed to rest on a desire to promote tolerance. Obviously, on the face of it, they rest on hostility, envy, and a desire for unearned benefits.”
I do not believe that the old nationalists, whose era according to Dr. Donald Livingston was from roughly 1880 to 1960, understand that the current elites, while still mouthing nationalist jingoism, have moved on. The astute observer could probably see it even more differentiated than I, but I think to see three distinct groups among those elites, sometimes quibbling at the fringes but pursuing similar goals if for different reason, with each employing the weapons of “multiculturalism” and “diversity.”
One is a group which I will call the Rockefeller Republicans. Their reasons for wanting to transcend nationalism is pedestrian: they see the money with a North American Union and a globalist reach through the cat’s paws of the U.S. government, namely the U.N., NATO, the WTO, and the World Bank.
Another group are the Neo-Conservatives with their Trotsky wing and their Straussian/Heidegger wing. They have the will to power and an internationalist agenda, particularly in reference to the Middle East, in which multiculturalism and diversity fit nicely. Most of them represent first and second generation immigrant intellectual elites.
The third group is the New Left. For them, multiculturalism and diversity are weapons of deconstruction within the framework of Critical Theory. They are the heirs of the Frankfurt School whose genesis lies in Marx and Freud as interpreted by Lukacs and Gramsci and as nourished by Felix Weil, Adorno, Marcuse and others.
The first two groups currently dominate the Republican Party, although many of the neo-cons were old Scoop Jackson Democrats. The last group dominates the Democratic Party, at least the ideologues within it.
13 Comment by robert m. peters on 7 March 2008:
Mr. Breisch @ 11,
I thoroughly agree. A society which is will to place its women it harms way and couch it in false virtue, ultimately in the context of “equality,” that false god, lacks real virtue and is therefore devolving as a civilized society.
14 Comment by Thomas Miller on 7 March 2008:
“My late and much lamented golden retriever Georgia knew more real history than any Straussian “scholar,” just from conversations she heard around the house. And she had a lot more character, dignity, and good will.”
I can believe that. Golden Retrievers are a very smart breed. I also believe George W. Bush’s Scottish Terrier would make a better president than him. He even looks more presidential:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barney-20040908.jpg
15 Comment by Zika on 8 March 2008:
People are interest driven and their selfish motivations far outweigh morals, integrity, truth. That is those who would do anything in order to cling to power, they are a ruling elite with unscrupulous and ruthless agenda. They may not be bright , intelligent and educated, but they possess slimy& shoddy personalities that highly appeal to majority of the people.
Just look at a Kosovo ruling elite, since you’ve mentioned it, those that self-proclaimed an independence. The world must know that those at the top over there are CRIMINALS, ARSONIST, DRUG DEALERS, JIHAD WARRIORS WITH OSAMA as their Leader, MAFIOSI, BACKWARD, BARBARIC PERSONAS, to mention a few traits of theirs. Yet, they have been glorified and recognized in the West??? Mr. Bush was again at the very top of it( recognized ‘independence’)!!!
Your views and thoughts, Mr. Wilson, are advanced, avanguard and refreshing.
16 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 March 2008:
Mr. Maciano, #7. A short answer to a big question. I think it is more a problem of character than of intellect or education. Young men are no longer taught to ride hard, shoot straight, and tell the truth. (I say this after 40 years observation inside the belly of the academic beast.)
17 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 8 March 2008:
Zika #15. Thanks for your kind remarks. Never before have I been called avant garde!
18 Comment by unreconstructed on 8 March 2008:
Please explain the continuing fascination with R. E. Lee expressed on this blog. He seems much more a tragic than an heroic figure.
His forward strategy, when facing numerically superior and increasingly-capable enemy forces, actually seems not patriotic but self-centered or at least Virginia-centric.
The important point about Lee is that he lost. History seems to show that rebels should win a war for independence when confronted by 10 to 1 odds, but the South lost when faced by mere 3 to 1 odds. A defensive and scorched-earth strategy supplemented by partisan activity in the federal rear would have guaranteed success.
Admittedly, had history run its course, the South would have rebelled again, maybe as soon as 1880. Unfortunately, the probably successful second war for southern independence was circumvented by the federal Posse Comitatus Act and the general compromise of 1878.
Southern independence would, sadly for us, have meant that part of the Great War would have been fought in North America with the rump US on one side and the CSA and Canada on the other. Nevertheless and gladly for the rest of the world, the Great War would have been fought to a standstill and a honorable peace, and the
subsequent tragedies of the 20th Century avoided.
19 Comment by JJ Korman on 8 March 2008:
Too true!
20 Comment by Jeff Willbee on 8 March 2008:
Another great article, Mr. Wilson. Thank you for reminding us that some elders really are worthy of respect and attentive ears.
–American below the poverty line (working full-time and not a Mexican newbee)
21 Comment by Allan on 8 March 2008:
“The important point about Lee is that he lost”, unreconstucted
Perhaps you are right, just not in the way you believe.
“Crowns of roses fade, crowns of thorns endure. Calvaries and crucifixions take deepest hold of humanity–the triumphs of might are transient–they pass and are forgotten– the sufferings of right are graven deepest on the chronicle of nations.” Father Ryan
22 Comment by Edward on 8 March 2008:
“I think it is more a problem of character than of intellect or education. Young men are no longer taught to ride hard, shoot straight, and tell the truth.”
Indeed. Moral virtue is intrinsically connected to proper intellectual development. Aristotle thought his ethic was unsuited for those who hadn’t already been properly inculcated with virtue, and academia would do well to follow his example. Maybe because of multiculturalism, which at its heart is relativism, the entire process of teaching and learning has been relegated to the intellect where nothing is truly imposed on the pupil (sorry, student) except information. This could be wrong, but I only suggest it based on my daily experiences at college in Manhattan.
23 Comment by René on 9 March 2008:
“…to establish a regime in which rulers were servants of the people rather than the other way around, which had been the universal experience of mankind.”
If that has been a universal human experience, doesn’t conservatism teach us that it was doomed from the beginning on?
“There is no such thing as a great republic” – Joseph de Maistre
24 Comment by MAP on 9 March 2008:
Having been born in the shadow of W.W.II, I have witnessed in my lifetime several events which have departed from the traditional and, I believe, to the present chaos:
1. the civil rights ‘movement’
2. country-wide illegalization of prayer in schools
2. country-wide illegalization of Christian pubic displays
3. country-wide legalization of abortion-on-demand
4. Federal control of public schools
5. Immigration ‘reform’
There are probably others, but these are profound beginnings.
25 Comment by MAP on 9 March 2008:
I should have added:
6. the Neocon takeover of the Republican party thereby giving us two liberal parties
26 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 9 March 2008:
Edward, if your college manages at least to transmit real information, you are extraordinarily lucky for these days.
27 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 9 March 2008:
Unreconstructed, #18
“Only the atheist regards success as the measure of right.”
—Rev. Robert Lewis Dabney to Southern youth, 1866
28 Comment by Edward on 9 March 2008:
As far as real education is concerned, discovering Chronicles was my true lucky break.
29 Comment by Maciano on 9 March 2008:
@Mr. Clyde N. Wilson
Thank you for the short, but clear response. I believe you’re right, it is probably judt a matter of character. But if so, I am guilty of that charge as well. Through intensive reading and studying, I’ve come to know a lot of facts, best termed as ‘crimethink’. Some of it, isn’t even disputed among learned people. Yet, it remains taboo for current debate.
Knowledge is a good thing, but what if you’re one of the few receptive to it? If it’s almost impossible to speak your mind without condemnation. The PC police will be over you like a horny bulldog on a poodle.
Just check this site:
thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com
This is the kind of brainless guilt-by-association PC enforcer which I have come to hate with a passion. I know, that we should man up and let these people talk, but I don’t want to be known as some sort of evil degenerate. That may be cowardice.
What about the Jamie Kirchick hitpiece against the morally superior Ron Paul? Or check the ridiculous Media Matters outfit and their “info” on “hater” Steve Sailer of the “known hate site” and “white nationalist” VDare. Argh!
I feel so sad about people like that.. Why are these people so dumb, and so evil at the same time. Don’t they see that their slander is destroying the careers of some of our best and brightest? People who could change things.
(Btw, real change. Not the Obama-rhetoric about ‘change’ without content.)
30 Comment by Frank on 9 March 2008:
unreconstructed,
I’d be wary of criticising Lee, unless certain of being in the right. Lee was the South’s champion, and there seems to be a campaign under way now to undermine his nearly unmatched reputation, and unlike most heroes Lee was the real thing.
Every young man needs a hero, a model to strive after, an inspiration for pursuing honor, and Lee was mine as well as that of many other Southerners I’m sure.
31 Comment by Eagle on 9 March 2008:
Professor Wilson,
Regardling Robert E. Lee – much agreed in your response posted at #27!
For a Serb, the Martyred Prince Lazar is regarded much in the same manner. He also “lost” (though the Kosovo battle was actually a draw fought against a numerically superior foe). And, like Lee, will forever live in the hearts of true Christian patriots for reasons that many will never understand, much less respect.
And your comment about Kosovo is very true as well! I have warned fellow Serbs about how nonsensical it has been to invoke the image of Lincoln in posters proclaiming Serbia’s sovereignty over Kosovo. I know the public relations angle being played…but still, it is utterly nonsensical to those in the know. Kosovo is not like the South and Serbia is not like America. Someone on this site has already mentioned it – Serbia is like Virginia and Kosovo is like “West Virginia”.
American forces in 1999 conducted themselves in a manner reminiscent of 1864 in a strategy that evolved directly from General Sherman’s playbook. When air power failed to cow the Serbian military the generals ordered attacks on civilian infrastructure.
That Lee would not have ordered the incineration of women and children – then or now – is a credit to his character and a testament to his faith that every single Christian patriot should know about and thoroughly honor.
32 Comment by unreconstructed on 9 March 2008:
To Prof Wilson at 27
Thanks for replying to my comment at 18, especially since it is indeed a bit off-topic. I am a huge fan of yours.
The “rightness” of Lee’s cause is, of course, literally beyond dispute.
A people have the right to be free of oppressive government. Indeed they have the right to be rid of a government for any reason they choose.
I only commented on the ineffectiveness of his strategic leadership. Indeed since the UCMJ prohibits a commander from surrendering his troops while they have the means to resist, Lee’s precipitous surrender is inexcusable even by today’s reduced standards.
Do you not agree that his strategy placed the short-term interest of Virginia above that of the Confederacy generally?
to Frank at 30
In criticizing Lee, I am, unfortunately, quite certain of being in the right. You might recall that the partisan resistance drove the Reconstruction governments back into their rat holes in a very few years. The South would have won a renewed war fought with partisan tactics better suited to it situation.
As a South Carolinian, I had my preferred hero, Francis Marion, the guerrilla fighter.
You may recall that his cause prevailed. If I am wrong, God save the Queen.
As a “military man”, I never wore more than one bar. Nevertheless, I lost (also fought) no great battles, so as a critic of strategy and tactics I might be an unrecognized military genius! (sarcasm off!)
33 Comment by Rublev's Dog on 9 March 2008:
Lee concentrated in Virginia because the Confederate government re-located its capital in Richmond — near industry and infrastructure, but too close to the enemy capital, which created a perpetual strategic nightmare.
I agree with Stromberg’s thesis that the South should have fought a guerrilla war, using its size and geography to its advantage. Conventional line battles against superior numbers were destined for inevitable failure — especially after seizing defeat from the jaws of victory at Shiloh.
I prefer the localist, populist Southern partisanship of men like Joe Brown and Zeb Vance (although Brown sold out during Reconstruction) to the centralized, neo-Hamiltonian style of Davis & co. in Richmond.
34 Comment by robert m. peters on 9 March 2008:
Eagle @ 31
There may well have been others, but, if so, I was among those who said that Kosovo is to Serbia and West Virginia is to Virgina. Serbia is sovereign and Virginia is sovereign. Naught can be morally and lawfully taken from the people of Serbia or Virginia without their expressed consent. The EU, NATO and the United States are in the matters of Serbia what Lincoln was to the matters of the sovereign states which had left the Union. The difference is that Serbia was never a part of the EU which is now trying to impose itself on the Serbian people. In bringing by force and against their will the people of Virginia back into the Union, Lincoln stripped from them West Virginia. In attempting to force Serbia into the EU, that same organization along with NATO and the U.S. have stripped Kosovo from Serbia. Such is, I believe, the correct analogy, although honorable men may differ.
I do wish, therefore, that the Serbian leadership and the Serbian people would not use Lincoln as their model. He is the model of their oppressors! He is not just their model; his spirit lives in them!
35 Comment by Jacob Aitken on 9 March 2008:
Dr Peters,
Do you think that there will be a major armed conflict in Serbia similar to the late ’90s? At the end of the century Russia was too weak to have any real say in the NATO bombing of the Balkans, but now Russia is quite strong. If there were a conflict, and granted much of this is speculating into the future and thus fraught with peril,
1) Would the US be heavily involved since they/we are bogged down in a war(s) in the Middle East?
2) Without US help, and with Russia looming in the background, how strong would NATO/EU be?
Regards,
JA
36 Comment by robert m. peters on 9 March 2008:
Mr. Aitken @ 35
I would not dare forecast the Balkans. There are on these fora men with a much better understanding and insight into the Balkans, Russia, Serbia as well as the individual players.
I would, however, say that the Russians are most likely looking for ways to check the U.S., NATO and EU as those entities encroach on Russia interests and spheres of influence and that the Russians are economically, politically and militarily much better off today than they were in the 90’s, one of the most important elements being the strong leadership which has emerged.
The U.S., NATO and the EU have shown a willingness to quickly reach for war as a means of politics; however, well calculated use against people whom they could easily defeat. I do not believe that Russia wants war in the Balkans, and I do not believe that the aforementioned entities would be willing to fight the Russians; however, someone could miscalculate.
Some of the experts on these fora can and certainly will correct me; however, I believe that if the Russians were going to make a military move short of war, such as sending a force to Serbia or mounting a meaningful naval presence in the Adriatic, the optimal time for such an action has passed. However, the Russians know how to postpone gratification and have other cards to play elsewhere when the time and circumstances are right, particularly if their interest is a quid pro quo and not to change the current status quo in the Balkans.
What the Serbs might and can do is unknown to me.
It may well be that the Serbs like the Confederacy in general and Virginia in particular are on their own and will have to live with the prevailing status quo. (Today, most Virginians do not want West Virginia, although there may still be some dissenting voices on that!)
I believe that a owe a response on metanarrative!
37 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 10 March 2008:
The comparison of Lee and Francis Marion is not apt. Marion operated in sparsely settled territory under authority of a constituted South Carolina government. For Lee to resort to guerilla war (much as one might wish it) would have placed the burden on the Southern civilian population, which was already suffering from a ruthless invading force. Better a conditional surrender than to continue under those circumstances against overwhelming numbers and resources. Marion could expect the enemy to eventually give up and sail away; Lee had no such hope. Besides, Lee and Johnston surrendered with the understanding that the legal governments of the Southern states could continue as soon as they stopped fighting, and their men were paroled, not captured. Of course, the Republicans lied and threw out the understanding as soon as we surrendered. But then, if they could were not liars and scoundrels there would have been no reason to secede to begin with. (And how little has the Republican party changed.)
38 Comment by robert m. peters on 10 March 2008:
Dr. Wilson @ 37
My grandmother, in whom my great-grandfather, her father-in-law, confided as he aged, told me as a young child of the things that the old man had reported to have seen as he walked back to Louisiana after surrendering with Johnston. One of the things which she related to me was his sorrow at the devestation of the civilian population which they encountered across the South as they made their way homeward.
It should also be remembered that in 1865, the South had no international allies, no means for sustaining a protracted guerilla war and the enemy was among us in overwhelming numbers with the means and the will, already well demonstrated, to scorch the earth, to rape and to murder. It is the inclination of Christian men to protect home and hearth, wife and children, and not to commit mass suicide or the pursue victory at all costs. Assuming for a moment that we could have won such a war, what would we have had in the end – millions more dead, much more devastation than in the previous four years and even through Reconstruction and perhaps, worst of all, a devastation of the soul. Thank God, we have our souls; and with that we can continue to resist.
39 Comment by Rob Huling on 10 March 2008:
And so many revere Lincoln. Always beware if you say anything bad about Lincoln. Many children come to me with questions about history because things don’t add up in their classrooms. I get the feeling somebody will do away with me just to shut me up.
Like Napoleon said, “History is what the population agrees it is”
40 Comment by Rublev's Dog on 10 March 2008:
Dr. Wilson & Mr. Peters — I agree with you both. To clarify, the “Stromberg thesis” I alluded to (#33) would have involved gurerrilla measures from the onset of hostilities, not after four years’ exhaustion of conventional means. Surrender was the only sane option left to Lee & Johnston.
41 Comment by robert m. peters on 10 March 2008:
Rublev’s Dog @ 40,
There has been some criticism of Washington because he tried to mold the Continential Army into a European style, with its discipline and top-down structure, ignoring, according to some, that Americans were usually more successful fighting less conventionally. I do not claim to be an authority on Revolutionary War tactics or strategies but merely note the similarities between criticisms of Washington and Stromberg’s thesis to which you have alluded.
42 Comment by James Newland on 10 March 2008:
On the “intellectuals” vs. the learned: let us remember that the term “intellectual” was coined to describe Parisian and other High European thinkers who subscribed to the new atheism and socialism of, for example Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir. It is meant to connote an a priori rejection of supernatural truth and a subsequent hard-headed embrace of rank materialism. This was all so avant-garde in the ’30’s and ’40’s, don’t you know, even if it’s boringly passe today.
So you’re right, Dr. Wilson, that there are far too many intellectuals running around (although the intellectuals today are generally too stupid and uneducated to be really willful ones, like those of mid-century; these are more like trained monkeys, who imitate signs they’ve been given), and that, by contrast, actual thinkers–i.e. those who seek the truth wherever it may be found–are light on the ground.
“Young men are no longer taught to ride hard, shoot straight, and tell the truth. (I say this after 40 years observation inside the belly of the academic beast.)”
This is far too sweeping a judgment. It may be true of your school, Dr. Wilson, and it is undoubtedly true of the vast bulk of American institutions, but there are exceptions. Some men are still taught to ride hard, shoot straight, and tell the truth. The problem is that their voices are rarely heard and they are actively prevented from rising by the keepers of our societal gates. The man of principle is not welcome in most modern American venues, as I know you understand.
43 Comment by robert m. peters on 10 March 2008:
Mr. Huling @ 39,
Lincoln is a icon among Southern Baptists in the Deep South. One of his pictures “graced” a page in a Sunday school book. He is often quoted right along with St. Paul in sermons, with just once being too often. That blasphemous hymn written by a heretic “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is sung with voices raised on Memorial Day and Veterans Day. I leave the sanctuary evey time that it is sung, for what can be designated as “sanctuary” with the Union army camped in it. This last Memorial Day when it was sung, it could still be heard outside. I noted that for Christians of post-modernity, there is is politically correct version: they no longer sing “as He died to make men holy let us DIE to make men free.” They sing, “as He died to make men holy let us LIVE to make men free.” Dying, unless one is the unborn or some foreigner under our sanctions or bombs is not cool or in.
44 Comment by Eagle on 10 March 2008:
“The man of principle is not welcome in most modern American venues, as I know you understand.”
Mr. Newland, I think you make an excellent point. By extension we are suffering a cultural crisis. Yes, many people are ignorant and unintelligent. But the bigger point is that even if we could magically elevate their cognitive abilities and knowledge of the world, it would be for nought if they did not have the necessary virtues or moral frameworks by which to make the world more human. Principle is lacking in most every corner of our “politicized” and animalistic (“evolutionary”) society.
Americans (and Europeans, for that matter) elevate to a level of god those who can shelf their pride, dignity, and any sense of right and wrong in order to achieve political success, whether it be in the sphere of government, business, academia, or, even, churches. And, let’s all be objective in our assessment, ALL those spheres are now dominated by the disease of politics where rarely can a man of principle “succeed”. Society now measures “success” not by the character of men and their offspring, and the decisions made and paths chosen, but by office and wealth attained.
It is a sick world that cannot and will not endure. The relevant questions are when and how will it all crumble.
45 Comment by woodcutter on 10 March 2008:
Young men are no longer taught to ride hard, shoot straight, and tell the truth. (I say this after 40 years observation inside the belly of the academic beast.)…..16Clyde Wilson
Dr.Wilson, I am the Father of a nineteen year old son. Your above statement is very true. The only place my son ever heard the truth and taught morals was at home (the domestic church) and some at Church. Like so many other things the foundation needs to be made out of quality stuff. Society at large teaches the opposite in fact. If any Father is hoping that the school system or society will take up the slack he is sadly mistaken. Most of the men I know are cowards in this regard.
46 Comment by Edward on 10 March 2008:
I just turned 20 and I can tell you that it is utterly lamentable that, in order for parents to raise their children rightly in this country, they must engage in full-scale war with the world outside their front door. There can be no reliance on neighbors or the culture in general to correctly raise children.
47 Comment by Thomas Flinn on 19 March 2008:
Robert E. Lee was a man among men. My favorite story about him was the one in which he boarded a train on which were several Confederate soldiers. He proceeded to sit down until at a later stop a lady boarded and found no place to sit. Once he realized that no one was standing to offer her his seat, Lee did so. Immediately Lee was offered a seat by some of the soldiers. He refused to take it, saying that he would not accept a seat which had been refused to a lady. I don’t know if the story is apocryphal or not (please enlighten me anyone), but it is a great story and it certainly illustrates the character of the man.