Lincoln Follies
A few of us now decrepit pre-Reagan “conservatives” can remember the brief flicker of hope of saving the republic that we had around 1980. Around about that time we were heartened by the founding of the Washington Times, which, it was thought, might become an effective foe of the mainstream media—despite its connection with the vile Moonie cult. Like everything else in the spurious “Reagan Revolution,” the Times was soon just another firing post of the disguised (but non-spurious) Trotskyite revolution of neoconservatism.
I suppose the paper has had a few good reporters and done some minor good here and there, but our naive hopes died aborning. The first editorial page editor, William Cheshire, a man of integrity, quickly learned that no professional could tolerate the position. I had long known Cheshire, my fellow Tar Heel. In the early days, before he resigned in disgust, he offered Yours Truly a job as editorial writer. I was in no position to make a move at the time. I suggested my Chapel Hill friend Sam Francis. The rest, as they say, is history.
Obviously, any hopes that we had for the Times were over when the neocon third-stringers who controlled the paper fired Sam Francis, one of the few intelligent, learned, principled, and honest writers they had. In fact, the only writer on the Times’ editorial page who had anything to say other than Republican boilerplate.
I remembered this when someone sent me a link to the Washington Times’ Lincoln Day editorial (unsigned). This silly exercise in fantasy pretending to be serious commentary would be a D- paper in any respectable freshman history class.
The readers are told that there have been two occasions when “the very existence of the United States was in grave doubt.” The first time we were saved by the Founding Fathers and the second time by Lincoln. This is to skip over the minor consideration that the existence of the United States was not in doubt when the Founders acted—because the United States did not exist in the way this writer means. That is why they are called Founders. (The Founders did not create the United States either. The United States was created by the American spirit of liberty and self-government and the thirteen free and independent States that already existed when they acted.)
Interestingly, in light of some discussion that has gone on on this site in regard to Lincoln’s reading, we are told that his treasured books were the Bible, Shakespeare, the Constitution, and the Statutes of the United States. This is a lawyer’s arsenal, not a statesman’s.
Our editor goes on to quote someone named Michael Beschloss, “perhaps America’s most noted historian.” I am considered a bit of an historian myself, but I have to admit I have never before heard or seen the name of Mr. Beschloss. There follows a long barf-making quotation from Carl Sandburg, whose name is misspelled by the way—which illustrates the folly of our pervasive Lincoln worship better than any critic can possibly do.
Not often in the story of mankind does a man arrive on earth who is both steel and velvet, who is as hard as rock and as soft as drifting fog, who holds in his heart and mind the paradox of terrible storm and peace unspeakable and perfect.
Gag!
And then we reach the peroration of this learned editorial: “Thank God for Abraham Lincoln. May our nation always be worthy of him.” Well, Mr. Washington Times pundit, the way things are going you don’t have to worry about that.
Entries(RSS)
Equal = equal. Sex is not in dispute here. Besides, who says this is the world of man?
Equal = equal? Galatians 3:28 says we're all one in Christ, but people take this to all sorts of extremes. And you'd said "should be so before Man."
---
Genesis 9:2 is all I meant by "world of man" - meant to be contrasted with the next life.
---
Anyway, I meant my previous comment to be rhetorical, though it doesn't seem to have had the intended effect.
@48
I'm not sure from your post whether or not we agree.
In any case, when it comes to what we erroneously call human "races," what we typically call "black" in the U.S. comes in almost infinite shades of brown. The closest I have seen to an totally black human being is what's left of some ancient mummies and some people who live on the African continent. The closest thing to an actually white human being is a person with albinism. What we call "white" comes in almost infinite shades of, well, pick your own crayola # (an olive-skinned Italian is considered "white" when the race game is played). The closest I have seen to a red human being is someone with a severe sunburn. The yellowest person I have ever seen was my infant son with his jaundice. Neither of his parents are from anywhere in Asia (although I will not rule out possible ancestors from that huge continent).
At what point did anyone become a "mongrel?" Who were the first black parents? The first yellow or red ones? How did these people come to be their specific, unadulterated colors, and exactly what colors on the wheel were they? If such people ever existed, how did their births constitute the beginnings of discrete human "races," and what color(s) were their parents? What color(s) were Adam and Eve?
I'm not putting you specifically on the spot, Geronimo, to answer the unanswerable. But the notion that there are discrete human "races" prompts my questions.
I will not play the multi-race game because it is without foundation in Truth and abets falsehood and injustice. On every census form, I designate myself a member of the human race. It's the only one.
Is the only breed of dog the "dog breed"?
You might as well be consistent and say that as well.
@53
Black mummies?
Alas, as is all too usual, this discussion has got way off track. The subject of my piece was Lincoln worship and neocon ignorance and deceit.
FOR MARK HIGDON. I actually say that the question of race should be “prejudicially irrelevant”, that is, one may or may not see the colors as long as one admits to the “equality” of all colors. To Lincoln, that equality was unthinkable, never mind the “emancipation”.
@57 And since Geronimo has rethreaded the wayward thread (per Prof. Wilson @56), I will agree with his conclusion @57.
One more thing, @54: It is illogical to ask me to to "be consistent" by applying to dogs the principles that I have established (by God's own Word) are unique to human beings. We know by Divine Revelation that human beings are made in God's image and likeness and that all are descended from two--and only two--first parents. First parents, the first of whom was directly created from the slime; the second, then, from the first. Not mutated, not "evolved." Created--to their unique, immortal nature--by their Creator. I am puzzled that I find myself having to repeat these fundamentals.
It's not a question of applying principles, Mark, it's a question of observing reality.
And the reality everyone can see is that just as there are subtypes of the dog species that are usually called breeds, there are subtypes of the human species that are usually called races.
"We know by Divine Revelation that human beings are made in God’s image and likeness and that all are descended from two–and only two–first parents."
We aren't talking about what was the case at the beginning of the human race, when there was but one human family and one human race. Rather we are talking about what is the case now, where there are clearly many human families, and likewise, many human races.
And it isn't just a question of "color", those are just convenient shorthand labels. Rather it is ancestry, genetics, and morphological characteristics (including skin color, but also facial features, etc.) that mark a person out as belonging to a particular race or combination thereof.
Apologies for going off topic.
I wish students were made aware of this in history classes.
The lie has been well sold that the US is an "experiment" and an "ideological nation" and what not... Some of us call a tiny corner of this immense state home.
@59 "We aren’t talking about what was the case at the beginning of the human race, when there was but one human family and one human race. Rather we are talking about what is the case now, where there are clearly many human families, and likewise, many human races."
Since we are all descended from two first parents, there is, in fact, only one--greatly extended--human family.
Would someone who believes in multiple human races PLEASE define the term? I'm still waiting for that.
I simply must reply to 61...
@61: "A mostly distinct gene pool".
This could be anything from a small clan to a nation of several clans, etc. Wiki has an interesting entry on historical definitions of race.
We should drop this off topic debate. A google search brings up racial sites that will readily debate this topic.
Perhaps Mr Higdon should also define 'family'.
We can see many varieties of animals out there, and when we look at different kinds of humans, we can see the differences and know that differences do exist. Words are not even necessary when the simple act of seeing informs us of the differences. It would be ridiculous to say that these physical characteristics are not genetic, since they are inseparable from the ethnic groups which have the traits. Why the demands for a definition of one single word? Most people are not Webster and dont have a copy of his dictionary on hand, or care to use google. All words change meaning over time, and have meanings that are not always clearly defined according to common usage. In any even, no matter what we are talking about, the word is never the thing, but that does not mean that words aren't useful or accurate.
I am not a linguist or a philologist, and neither are most people on this site, so I'll leave the definition of race to people better qualified to deal with definitions of words.
The fact that all people are descended from two original ancestors does not preclude the existence of races or ethnic groups, no matter what definitions are used. It is true that all are one in God's eyes, but we also live in a physical world where you can be mugged or raped purely because of your race.
I wonder if there is a definition that will satisfy Mr Higdon. I also get the impression that for him, 'race' seems to have a negative meaning, whatever that meaning might be. The fact that races do exist is not a negative thing, and to think that it is could lead to many sorts of follies, perhaps not on Mr Higdon's part, but certainly on the part of others. For some reason, it reminds me of Cathars who thought that all things physical were evil and so would starve so that their mass would be smaller, and therefore, less 'evil'.
My obvious implication is that the human "race" and human family are one and the same. Obviously, that definition satisfies me. Clearly, I know what I mean by race. Mr. Allen Wilson demurs from defining race, then insists on using the word in sentences. I'll let that practice speak for itself.
Race is not a term used in the Holy Bible, but Old Testament divisions are by nation, tribe and tongue. The New Testament seems only concerned with believers and unbelievers.
That being said, one can't help but notice that some tribes work harder than others, some are more interested in acquiring knowledge, and some others produce better literature. And among the believers, some are more childishly emotional while others are more rational and studious.
@65 Indeed, my friend. I don't recall the Holy Bible uses the term "culture", either.
"One can't help but notice that some tribes work harder than others..." I would phrase it thus: "One can't help but notice that most members of some tribes tend to work harder than most members of some other tribes." But I believe our thinking is close in this matter.
God visited his punishment upon mankind following the Tower of Babel. One could speculate that His punishment went beyond confusion of languages. In any case, it did not erase the discrete beginning of the (one) human race.
"And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
"And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth."
—Revelation 5:8-10
Now Mr Higdon, after faulting me for using the word 'race' without providing a definition, which can be found in any dictionary (and I doubt that any definition provided by anyone here would satisfy him, since he seems intent on not being satisfied by any definition any of us might provide) then uses the word himself @66 above. I'll let that practice speak for itself.
This is ridiculous.