Finest Resolution Ever Made

Lincoln, The American Lenin
http://brotownsend.foru5.com/viewtopic.php?t=1339&mforum=brotownsend
"If you'd like to know whether an individual is a libertarian or a conservative, ask
about Abraham Lincoln."

Posted by Brock Townsend at January 2, 2008 3:19 PM

Well, I've read many things about Lincoln including thoughts that tend along those lines, but I have to say that that posting from lneilsmith.org encapsulates just about the dumbest sheaf of drool going around. It even outdoes the "Lincoln was gay" crowd but being, in its own way, gayer still.

Posted by Vanderleun at January 2, 2008 3:40 PM

I first saw "The Bridges at Toko Ri" as a young man entering Naval Flight Training. The Admiral's question, "Where do we get such men?" just resonated in my heart. "Here I am," my heart spoke.

Where does it come from? The willingness to step forward and say, "Take me." I have no idea. I only know I'm a lucky man. I had the privilege and honor to serve with brave men. I still love them all dearly. But we are old and toothless now. Who will replace us?

They are out there. Young men and women who feel the call to duty. "Take me!" "Here I am!" "I'm ready!" And they're doing an awesome job.

For a story about just such men, may I suggest "SOLE SURVIVOR" by Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell. It will make you aware of the sacrifices being made by incredible young men and women who are serving today and the sacrifices of their families. It will also open your eyes to the enemy we face and how difficult it is to fight them with one hand tied behind our backs.

Is it too much to resolve that these warriors will have our support and thanks? And that we will elect a C-in-C that they can be proud to follow.

Posted by Jimmy J. at January 2, 2008 3:50 PM

With the thoughts Brock's been thinkin', he could be another Lincoln, if he only had a brain.

Posted by Gagdad Bob at January 2, 2008 8:13 PM

Ah, yes, typical neo-cons/liberals who won't debate an issue, but feel free to use insults like little children in their sandbox.

Brock Townsend
100% Service Related Disabled Veteran
Vietnam '67-'72 & '73-'75

Posted by Brock Townsend at January 3, 2008 9:21 AM

Dear Mr. Townsend,
You seem to have come under the spell of the thought that all ideas and propositions, no matter how loony, are up for serious debate. This is simply, among rational people of every political persuasion, not the case. Inane or insane concepts are not up for debate, least of all among those that hold them. Indeed, those that hold them are the ones that are not interested in discussion but only promulgation.

In addition, your state of disability or term of service, no matter how honorable, are simply not germane to this issue.

As for Lincoln as Lenin, the original loony speculation, I am reminded of Dr, Johnson in this anecdote:

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." Boswell: Life of Johnson.

You are, of course, entitled to your hobby horse, but there is no law that says people must ride beside you.


Posted by Vanderleun at January 3, 2008 9:30 AM

Or, as Bob at Onecosmos put it less formally:

One Cosmos: Why Good Things Happen to... <i>People</i>, of All Things

You know that Abraham Lincoln (see comments) was just a tyrant and demagogue who used the slavery issue to consolidate presidential power in unprecedented ways. You know that people only pretend a fetus is not a parasite in order to gain control over women's bodies. You employ strict logic to understand reality. How monkey logic can ever arrive at moral or any other kind of truth, you cannot say.

Buddy, you are without a clue. You are a One Cosmos troll, the lice on Bob's transdimensional vapor trail. But enviously suckling on the creativity of another feels good, so it must be right.

Posted by Vanderleun at January 3, 2008 10:45 AM

My ancestor, secretary of state Toombs, tried many times before the war to meet with Lincoln to try and hammer out an agreement both sides could agree to so war could be avoided, but Lincoln refused to meet with him. Toombs always believed that we did not have to go to war and I am proud of him doing his best to avoid needless bloodshed.
No matter what people say, the fact is, the US has a history of pouncing on weaker nations and taking what it wants.

Posted by Rob Huling at January 3, 2008 11:25 AM

The intriguing thing I'm seeing is that no one here is debating the simple facts presented in the link provided by Mr. Townsend.

Specifically, Lincoln did suspend various parts of the Constitution (including the writ of habeus corpus), while at the same time shutting down opposition newspapers. All of this was done for the purpose of increasing the federal government's power,and helping out his special interests (the merchantile interests, who were very much concerned about a significantly lower tariff at Southern ports).

In fact, when asked by more sane people around him why not just let the South go in peace, his response was "but what about my tariff?". What sane person would allow purely economic interests dictate the loss of over 600,000 lives--not to mention tremendous loss of property, and countless civilian lives as well.

That people are so blind to logic when it comes to Lincoln is a good illustration of how indoctrinated people have become, due in large part to the nonsense they are taught at the government-operated schools.

Lincoln succeeded where Hamilton and others failed at transforming a collection of sovereign states into a national empire. He brought war down on the Southern States because they left the union the same way they entered it. To suggest that there was some "noble" purpose for the war is easily refuted in the way the war was carried out, by madmen like Sherman who took great pleasure in burning and pillaging everything in sight.

It is a sad testimony indeed to all Americans that someone of Lincoln's poor character should be considered a "hero" to anyone...much less on a national level. And the responses I've seen are full of emotionalism, but devoid of logic.

Refute the points made, if you are able. However, facts are facts, despite how unpleasant they may be to those of you who were indoctrinated into thinking that Lincoln was anything other than a power-mad tyrant.

Posted by Jeff at January 3, 2008 11:38 AM

I love this post and am also fascinated with Lincoln. Several years ago, I was able to talk myself into the Claremont Institute's Lincoln Fellows program in Newport Beach, CA that normally takes only younger attendees. When they interviewed me, they realized how enthusiastic I was about Lincoln and the Second Founding and decided to have mercy on me and let me in. It was a stunningly wonderful experience. That summer (2005) in Wyoming, I poured over voluminous reading materials and hardly made it to the trout stream at all. It sealed my fate as a conservative, and a Lincolnophile.

It forever sealed my fate as a conservative.

Posted by Webutante at January 3, 2008 11:56 AM

"Ah, yes, typical neo-cons/liberals who won't debate an issue, but feel free to use insults like little children in their sandbox."

Vanderleun:

Your vindictive, irrational responses lend credence to my initial reply above. They remind me of Lincoln, another unreasonable individual, who *locked up all with whom he disagreed if within his immediate power, and sent mighty armies to kill, rape, murder and burn the rest.

*The Grandson Of Francis Scott Key Arrested By Lincoln
http://brocktosend.forum5.com/viewtopic.php?t=92&mforum=broctownsnd

Posted by Brock Townsend at January 3, 2008 2:36 PM

Brock,
Up your meds. Now you're sounding just like a bull-goose looney.

Remember the warning above:

"COMMENTS THAT EXCEED THE OBSCENITY OR STUPIDITY LIMITS WILL BE EITHER EDITED OR EXPUNGED"

But I am pleased, DAMNED PLEASED!, that anything I write would remind anyone of Lincoln. I don't think that's the truth, but it is flattering if only in a passing frisson.

As for Jeff, sock-puppet or alter-ego that s/he may be, who writes:

"The intriguing thing I'm seeing is that no one here is debating the simple facts presented in the link provided by Mr. Townsend."

You may continue to be intrigued and you may continue to fondle your "simple facts" but be sure to use a warm washcloth when you're done and don't do it here in public.

Posted by Vanderleun at January 3, 2008 2:52 PM

For sure, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus while agonizing and deploring the need to do so.

In his ground-breaking book on Lincoln and the coming of the Civil War, "A New Birth of Freedom," Harry Jaffa, whom I had the pleasure of meeting, writes,

"Assuming that the letter of the Constitution enjoins Lincoln from suspending the writ, it is also true that that letter (of the law) enjoins him to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. But he (President Lincoln) cannot execute any of the laws in one-third of the states. And the spread of the rebellion would prevent him from any or all of his efforts to fulfilll the constitutional mandate. To prevent the rebellion from succeeding the suspension of the writ is an indispensable means.

"Is it not certain that the failure of one law is to be preferred to the failure of all?

"Despite this proof, Lincoln next undertakes to prove that he has not, in fact, violated the constitutional provision concerning the suspension of the writ. In Lincoln's own words:

"'The provision of the Constitution that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,' is equivalent to a provision---is a provision---that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, that public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.'"

Lincoln reasoned, rightly, that sucession was 'the essence of anarchy.' He did not make this decision lightly, as some of your commenters imply.

Posted by Webutante at January 3, 2008 4:23 PM

I wish that I had measured up on my SATs when I was a kid. Turns out that I’m just a little above average. Now I now that the millionaire next door has an IQ just a little above average. I saved my first million ten years ago. Not all things are measured by money or fancy writing.

It is to bad that common sense and street smarts are not tested. But then, the intellectuals are the ones that would feel inferior. Which explains a certain response by a certain blog host.

I can understand why Lincoln is the hero of the [ignorant] black masses. I also understand why he is the hero of the intellectual as noted above.

From Freedom to Fascism. Ten easy steps.


Posted by MarkL at January 3, 2008 5:03 PM

Well, if you can understand all that you are not only smart but wise.

Posted by Vanderleun at January 3, 2008 5:37 PM

Oh well. The sacred right of some anonymous drone to measure the dimensions of a truly expansive world-historical soul by the view from inside the bee hive is what Lincoln died for:

"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.… It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence."

Posted by Gagdad Bob at January 3, 2008 7:03 PM

For some reason I am put in mind of Kohlberg's stages of morality, a descriptive set that is useful primarily to categorize where people are arguing from. There's one stage where the ideal is seen as the Law, or a particular iteration of the Law (as in principles.) Lawyers do very well at this stage, you might imagine, though a lawyer might have a moral development either above or below that stage.

You may want to look that one up, Mr. Vanderleun. It might well be illuminating. :)

Posted by B. Durbin at January 3, 2008 7:31 PM

I’m thinking that my communication skills need further developing.

I would like to know more of what Mr. Townsend has to say…. without further ridicule. This type like Townsend have made America. Ridicule of him is to ridicule the American revolution.


Posted by MarkL at January 3, 2008 8:34 PM

Webutante wrote: " Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.'"

Article 1 section 9 of the United States constitution is the part that deals with the suspension of Habeas Corpus.
Anyone who has studied the Constitution knows that the first three articles deal specifically with the three branches of federal government: the legislative (article 1) the executive (article 2) and the judiciary (article 3). The mention of a suspension of habeas corpus is mentioned inArticle 1, and not article 2, which is the article dealing with Lincolns branch of government, the executive. Lincoln may have tried to justify his action by claiming that it was "insisted" that congress be the branch that deals with this power, but there is a reason for that ...thay are the branch with whom this power was vested. It is interesting that you would provide a quote that deals expressly with lincolns outright deception and manipulation of the American people...

Posted by william Lee at January 3, 2008 8:46 PM

Again, Lincoln said: " The provision of the Constitution that ``The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,'' is equivalent to a provision---is a provision---that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion." -- Lincoln message to Congress, July 1891

http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/digitalarchive/speeches/spe_1861_0704_lincoln

Also known as desperate times require desperate measures and that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

Posted by vanderleun at January 3, 2008 8:53 PM

So, Lincoln started it all. The devolution of these United States into an evil fascist empire.

Or, or maybe it was really a cabal of New England manufacturers who used old Honest Abe as a sock puppet. Oh yeah, it all makes sense to me now. This has been a plot extending all the way from the Civil War to Chimpy McBushhitler.

The scales are falling from my eyes. At last I can see!

Now what was it I resolved to do in 08?

Posted by Jimmy J. at January 3, 2008 10:07 PM

When you know how it should be, and would be, if only you were the one to do it - it is obvious how others fell short or must have been conspiring against all that you know to be wise. Unfortunately you also are in no position to know the whole picture, having already determined all of its details.

I too spent some time earlier this ye... oops... last year, reading up on Lincoln, not about his predetermined conclusions, or economic master plans, but on the man - not god or demon, but the man. To watch him as he begins to see the nature of the beast before him - to see him do the perfectly understandable here and there along the way, attempting to turn aside - and then doing the incomprehensible - the godlike act of becoming Human and turning back to face it, to confront it, and continue on towards what was right and not turn away from what it deeply and truly meant and cost. Awe inspiring.

The forum Townsend linked to is off line (I'll try again tomorrow), but I suspect I've read their arguments before, their all encompassing grasp of it all, very clever people, no doubt. No doubt. And though that particular site might not take note of, it probably bears some resemblence to those that note how interesting that Lincolns secretary was named Kennedy, and Kennedy's named Lincoln... and their elections, 1860 and 1960... ah. So easily and effortlessly human and satisfied.

ah. I refute it thusly.

Posted by Van at January 3, 2008 10:09 PM

Something else, you can spend an enjoyable eternity some afternoon, reading Pericles's Funeral Oration... and then Lincolns Gettysberg Address, and back through again, and feel the timeless in your grasp.

Posted by Van at January 3, 2008 10:17 PM

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

And now you have government of the lobbyists, by the megacorporations, for the money. Democracy is unstable. Especially when there is little control of the money spent on propaganda, and when the education system is so fouled up that most citizens are incapable of judging the issues.

The USA is not alone here - possibly, the UK is worse, and for some of the same reasons.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at January 4, 2008 4:31 AM

Gerard,

Your comments and postings give me hope that we will still find the Men we need when the emergency presents itself. Men like Abraham Lincoln. As to the suggestion that he is the American Lenin or that the suspension of habeas corpus will lead to the downfall of American freedom, one need only look again to the same defenders of freedom that we always call upon to see who will respond with action when American freedom is threatened. Our military men don't complain much about its use, even when it is used against them in training.

If the suspension of habeas corpus is so egregious in the case of terrorists attacking Americans, then where are the Men of Action on the Left who are rising up against that suspension and taking the vigorous action necessary to restore it. Where are the bonfires lit and the axes and shovels carried high to storm the halls of Congress demanding its restoration?

Until Men exist on the Left, our freedoms are safe in the offices of the persons currently elected to fulfill their duties. And the day when Men of Action existed on the Left is pretty much a thing of the past right now (not saying they are extinct, just that they don't have the guts to actually stand up for their rights in any truly oppressive atmosphere like a Saddamist, Stalinist, Maoist, or Chavez led culture). The only "men" they have available are those who knife tires of vehicles used by Republicans to get out their voters, and mimes and actors who pretend to be something they clearly are not by acting out "waterboarding" torture and showing the rest of us just how stupid their arguments against it as torture truly are.

Keep up the good work Gerard. There are many who value your work.

Subsunk

Posted by Subsunk at January 4, 2008 5:55 AM

If I am not mistaken Lincoln took some of his more drastic measures when Congress was out of session so the reference to Article 1 section 9 is not applicable. I understand one side might suggest that Lincoln should have reconvened Congress rather than take executive power to suspend habeus corpus but at that time he was trying to prevent further secession. The fact that more states were attempting to secede may in itself prove that "the people" were opposed to Lincoln's expansion of federal power. I too attended a Claremont Lincoln lovefest and it was very instructive. However, prior to attending the class I took a course with politically incorrect professor Thomas E. Woods and read Thomas DiLorenzo The Real Lincoln. I am a history teacher and seek to present the clearest picture of the past possible and the implication it has on our present view of government. I think your perspective comes down to the questions you ask and whether or not the constitution is truly important. If the constitution is just a piece of paper there is no sense debating anything because might makes right and rule of law is out the window.
Great discussion.

Posted by cookie at January 4, 2008 10:28 AM

I was finally able to get into Brocks posting; I hope you don't mind my posting this here, his site apparently doesn't allow commenting without joining - no thanks.

He states that the test of whether someone is a libertarian or conservative, is whether or not they respect Lincoln. I think, in the end he's right, and the reason behind that explains their truly whacked views of Lincoln, and much else.

"If libertarians ran things, they'd melt all the Lincoln pennies, shred all the Lincoln fives, take a wrecking ball to the Lincoln Memorial, and consider erecting monuments to John Wilkes Booth."

Which from my experience with libertarians is mostly true. Ayn Rand called them the hippies of the right, and I think that was correct. Brock continues with:

"Conservatives, on the other hand, adore Lincoln, publicly admire his methods, and revere him as the best President America ever had. One wonders: is this because they'd like to do, all over again, all of the things Lincoln did to the American people? Judging from their taste for executions as a substitute for individual self-defense, their penchant for putting people behind bars -- more than any other country in the world, per capita, no matter how poorly it works to reduce crime..."
and so on.

Somehow the fact that "all of the things Lincoln did to the American people" had a purpose and a cause; escapes him. That crimes precede those people being put behind bars, or that States actions dependent upon, and affecting the expansion of, slavery, preceded civil war, and prompted their seceding from the Union, militantly, and ultimately caused the Civil War, eludes them.

Typically they allege imperialistic ambitions upon Lincoln, ignoring the fact that he was one of the few in congress to oppose the Mexican War and expansion of the U.S. into Texas, and failing that he left congress. Typically they pull out the individual quotes of Lincoln (actually relatively liberal at the time), quotes regarding blacks – he did see them as a separate and wronged people, and the idea of returning them to the land they were taken from, was a fairly popular idea at the time, and it wasn’t until nearly the end that he began to imagine that perhaps they were more than they seemed, but still he was a man ahead of his time – but unaware of ours. They pull out quotes purporting his acceptance of slavery, ignoring that he did deeply oppose slavery, and wished the end of the institution and their freedom, but he didn’t desire it at the cost of the destruction of the union and the carnage it would entail. Like Jefferson & Washington before him, he saw the problem, but not a costless solution – unlike them, he didn’t see the possibility of kicking the can down the road. They revile his Northern Aggression and ignore the moves of the southern states to expand into new states; making the untenable possibility that slavery might not just die quietly, but actually expand, which was the situation and actions that brought Lincoln back into politics. They accuse him of blood thirst while ignoring the period of inaction preceding the firing on Fort Sumter, as Lincoln attempted to arrange a reconciliation. And finally, they seem oblivious to the idea that War, having come, would actually be...WAR!; seems a bit too much for them to grasp.

But such issues require not only a grasp of the larger picture, but of larger purposes than their frustrated Itopias allow. Why do libertarians hate Lincoln, and conservatives love him? It centers around that issue of first causes, libertarians adore 'liberty' first, issues of right and wrong being for them determined solely on whether such so called liberty is restrained or released; while conservatives love Right and Wrong first and foremost, because they believe that Truth and Justice and the defense of them is the requirement for any true understanding and expression of Liberty. They can't and won't grasp that, which is why Ayn Rand dismissed them as cranks and hippies of the right, and why most libertarians vilified her as being 'moralistic', even as they swiped the letter of her philosophy - and she was hardly a conservative.

Libertarians have a juvenile hatred for being told that Right understanding and Right behavior precede Right actions, and all of the rest of their words and deeds follow from that. Right down the rabbit hole.

Posted by Van at January 5, 2008 8:45 AM