G.K. Chesterton

His comments are very, very interesting. Especially considering the timing of it being written in 1922. This was less than 60 years removed from the Civil War. That would be like someone writing about Korea and Vietnam right now. The memories and direct consequences of those wars are still very real to us today. Chesterton was born in 1874, only four years after Virginia itself was re-admitted to the Union (1870).

Anyway, I cherry picked what I thought were the most interesting:

On religious liberty at America’s founding:

Now there is nothing in this to diminish any dignity that belongs to any real virtues and virilities in the Pilgrim Fathers; on the contrary, it is rather to the credit of their consistency and conviction. But there is no doubt that the note of their whole experiment in New England was intolerance, and even inquisition. And there is no doubt that New England was then only the newest and not the oldest of these colonial experiments. At least two Cavaliers had been in the field before any Puritans. And they had carried with them much more of the atmosphere and nature of the normal Englishman than any Puritan could possibly carry. They had established it especially in Virginia, which had been founded by a great Elizabethan and named after the great Elizabeth. Before there was any New England in the North, there was something very like Old England in the South. Relatively speaking, there is still.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On a Northern vs. Southern birth view of America’s founding:

Long ago I wrote a protest in which I asked why Englishmen had forgotten the great state of Virginia, the first in foundation and long the first in leadership; and why a few crabbed Nonconformists should have the right to erase a record that begins with Raleigh and ends with Lee, and incidentally includes Washington. The great state of Virginia was the backbone of America until it was broken in the Civil War. From Virginia came the first great Presidents and most of the Fathers of the Republic. Its adherence to the Southern side in the war made it a great war, and for a long time a doubtful war. And in the leader of the Southern armies it produced what is perhaps the one modern figure that may come to shine like St. Louis in the lost battle, or Hector dying before holy Troy.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On the analogy of Ireland as the American South:

England once sympathised with the South. The South still sympathises with England. It would seem that the South, or some elements in the South, had rather the advantage of us in political firmness and fidelity; but it does not follow that that fidelity will stand every shock. And at this moment, and in this matter, of all things in the world, our political propagandists must try to bolster British Imperialism up, by kicking Southern Secession when it is down. The English politicians eagerly point out that we shall be justified in crushing Ireland exactly as Sumner and Stevens crushed the most English part of America. It does not seem to occur to them that this comparison between the Unionist triumph in America and a Unionist triumph in Britain is rather hard upon our particular sympathisers, who did not triumph. When England exults in Lincoln’s victory over his foes, she is exulting in his victory over her own friends.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

Observation on the Southern view of the War’s court history:

I can answer for it, at least, that there are some people in the South who will not be pleased at being swept into the rubbish heap of history as rebels and ruffians; and who will not, I regret to say, by any means enjoy even being classed with Fenians and Sinn Feiners.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On Southern slavery vs. Northern “slavery”:

Strange to say, it is not certain that a lost cause was never worth winning; and it would be easy to argue that the world lost very much indeed when that particular cause was lost. These are not days in which it is exactly obvious that an agricultural society was more dangerous than an industrial one. And even Southern slavery had this one moral merit, that it was decadent; it has this one historic advantage, that it is dead. The Northern slavery, industrial slavery, or what is called wage slavery, is not decaying but increasing; and the end of it is not yet. But in any case, it would be well for us to realise that the reproach of resembling the Confederacy does not ring in all ears as an unanswerable condemnation.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

On ex-post-facto justification of Lincoln:

And if [Lincoln] has been proved right, he has been proved right by the fact that men in the South, as well as the North, do now feel a patriotism for that American nation. His wisdom, if it really was wisdom, was justified not by his opponents being conquered, but by their being converted.

–G.K. Chesterton (1922)

This last quote was particularly interesting. It is the quote that Nock was referring to in his book. The crushing of secession was ultimately written down in history as the “right” thing to do, only because, ultimately, most Southerners accepted it as simply immutable. That’s what reconstruction was all about. Reconstruction was to be the re-programming of the Southern mind. It worked, and now Lincoln is seen as great. If, as Chesterton alludes to with his Irish example, the Southern spirit had continued to buck against centralized government and the resistance had continued into the twentieth century, Lincoln would be viewed more like Cromwell than Bismark.

What caused the battle at Fort Sumter 150 years ago this day?

If you read Lincoln’s first inaugural-address with any care at all, you’ll see that it was simply a declaration of war against the South. It was also filled with lies and specious reasoning. In 1861, the official government-charter for the U.S. was the U.S. Constitution. In writing it, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 (some of the most-canny politicians in the country) had pointedly omitted from it the “perpetual union” clause which had been a main feature of the unworkable Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union–the U.S.-government charter which had preceded the Constitution.

Under the Articles, no state could secede lawfully unless all states seceded simultaneously. But the Constitution–which Lincoln had just taken an oath to uphold–did not contain that clause (or any other like it); so any state could secede lawfully at any time. And the Southern states did secede lawfully. Honest Abe flat-out lied when he said that was not so in his inaugural address; and he subsequently used his blatant lie to slaughter 623,000 Americans and Confederates–primarily in order to perpetuate himself in political office.

Lincoln had said he would go to war to “preserve the Union.” But in order to start the war, he would somehow have to maneuver the South into firing the first shots, because Congress did not want war and would not declare war of its own volition.

The most-likely hot-spot in which Lincoln could start his war was Charleston Harbor, where shots had already been fired in anger under the Buchanan administration. But the newly-elected governor of South Carolina, Francis Pickens, saw the danger–that Lincoln might, as an excuse, send a force of U.S. Navy warships to Charleston Harbor supposedly to bring food to Maj Anderson’s Union force holed up in Fort Sumter. So Gov Pickens opened negotiations with Maj Anderson, and concluded a deal permitting Anderson to send boats safely to the market in Charleston once a week, where Anderson’s men would be allowed to buy whatever victuals they wished. (This arrangement remained in effect until a day or so before the U.S. Navy warships arrived at Charleston). Maj Anderson wrote privately to friends, saying that he hoped Lincoln would not use Fort Sumter as the excuse to start a war, by sending the U.S. Navy to resupply it.

Before his inauguration, Lincoln sent a secret message to Gen Winfield Scott, the U.S. general-in-chief, asking him to make preparations to relieve the Union forts in the South soon after Lincoln took office. Lincoln knew all along what he was going to do.

President Jefferson Davis sent peace commissioners to Washington to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with them; and he refused to permit Secretary of State Seward to meet with them.

After Lincoln assumed the presidency, his principal generals recommended the immediate evacuation of Maj Anderson’s men from Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor–which was now located on foreign soil. To resupply it by force at this point would be a deliberate act-of-war against the C.S.A.

It turned out that Lincoln’s postmaster general, Montgomery Blair, had a brother-in law, Gustavus V. Fox, who was a retired Navy-captain and wanted to get back into action. Fox had come up with a plan for resupplying Fort Sumter which would force the Confederates to fire the first shots–under circumstances which would make them take the blame for the war. Lincoln sent Fox down to Fort Sumter to talk with Maj Anderson about the plan; but Anderson wanted no part of it.

Lincoln had Fox pitch the plan to his Cabinet twice. The first time, the majority said that Fox’s plan would start a war and were unenthusiastic about it. But the second time, the Cabinet members got Lincoln’s pointed message, and capitulated.

Meanwhile, Congress got wind of the plan. Horrified, they called Gen Scott and others to testify about it; Scott and the other witnesses said they wanted no part of the move against the Confederacy in Charleston; and nor did Congress. Congress demanded from Lincoln–as was Congress’s right–Fox’s report on Maj Anderson’s reaction to the plan. Lincoln flatly and unconstitutionally refused to hand it over to them.

Lincoln sent to Secretary Cameron (for transmittal to Secretary Welles) orders in his own handwriting (!) to make the warships Pocahantas and Pawnee and the armed-cutter Harriet Lane ready for sailing, along with the passenger ship Baltic–which would be used as a troop ship, and two ocean-going tugboats to aid the ships in traversing the tricky shallow harbor-entrance at Charleston. This naval force was to transport 500 extra Union-soldiers to reinforce Maj Anderson’s approximately-86-man force at Fort Sumter–along with huge quantities of munitions, food, and other supplies.

The Confederacy would, of course, resist this invasion–in the process firing upon the U.S. flag. The unarmed tugs would, of necessity, enter the harbor first, whereupon they would likely be fired upon by the C.S.A., giving Lincoln the best-possible propaganda to feed to the Northern newspapers, which would then rally the North to his “cause.”

Lincoln sent orders for the Union naval-force to time its sailing so as to enter Charleston Harbor on 11 or 12 April. Next, Lincoln sent a courier to deliver an ultimatum to Gov Pickens on 8 April, saying that Lincoln intended to resupply Fort Sumter peaceably or by force. There was no mistaking the intent of that message.

Lincoln had set the perfect trap. He had given President Davis just enough time to amass his forces and fire upon the U.S. Navy. But if Davis acquiesced instead, Lincoln need merely begin sending expeditionary forces to recapture all of the former Union-forts in the South now occupied by Confederate forces; sooner or later Davis would have to fight; and the more forts he allowed Lincoln to recapture in the interim, the weaker would be the military position of the C.S.A. As a practical matter, Davis was left with no choice.

–Frank Conner, How and Why Abraham Lincoln Started the War…

Notice how Lincoln maneuvered the South into attacking first. He basically put the CSA into a position where they would either have to accept permanent US military bases(Jefferson Davis tried to meet with Lincoln to discuss repayment for the land the forts were on) throughout their country or have to fight back. Sound familiar? This would become a scheme used time and time again by American presidents to this day. Demonize the enemy and then slowly turn the screws diplomatically to where war is the only available option left to them. I’ve said it before: the South has been occupied and demonized by an invading army before. We should know better than to believe the lie.

I found it interesting that Glenn Beck had his “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial, and had pictures of Lincoln plastered on all the rally material. I guess Glenn forgot that Lincoln ordered the deaths of about 250,000 southern men and women during the War to Prevent Southern Independence, and then set the ball rolling for a brutal decade-long occupation of the former Confederate states. Exactly how is that “honorable?” My, how conservatives worship at the feet of dictators and tyrants. As long as they have an “R” after their name.

So many people give Lincoln an out by blaming the brutality of the post-war Southern occupation on the “radical republicans” in Congress. While that’s true, they would have never been so emboldened if it hadn’t been for Lincoln’s complete disregard of the Constitution and slaughtering of tens of thousands of Southerners at the hands of criminally insane generals like Sherman. When the President shreds the Constitution, what do you expect his successors to do? The same thing. Just like Bush completely disregarded the Constitution on a dozen occasions, now we have Obama doing the same thing.

So, Glenn. At your next rally, it’d probably be a good idea to steer clear of mass murderers as the face of your P.R. campaign. It sends a slightly wrong message. There are plenty of Americans from history that actually cared about freedom and liberty. Lincoln was absolutely not one of them.

The fact or action of becoming a god; deification; Glorification, exaltation; crediting someone with extraordinary power or status; A glorified example or ideal; the apex or pinnacle (of a concept or belief); Loosely, release from earthly life, ascension to heaven;

–Wiktionary.org

And as the title declares, the painting depicts George Washington, assumed into heaven as a deity. The angel on the left is, of course, holding the symbol of the fasces. Because, if there’s one thing the state will worship, it’s itself:

This is just a closeup of the center. Click on the image for a full, hi-res version of the complete painting.

What a coincidence that a giant painting depicting the deification of the state just happened to be completed right at the moment in history when the Federal government was crushing the final vestiges of state independence at Appomattox. The only thing I’m surprised about is that it isn’t called the Apotheosis of Lincoln. I guess even he couldn’t be that brazen.

For many years, pro-lifers have expended vast time, energy, and money “marching on Washington” every January, to exactly zero effect. Worse, they hark back to pro-redistribution events. And always, as with the latest 9/12 extravaganza, headed by red-state fascists, the marchers assemble on the “National Mall,” the government grass that extends from Lincoln’s Roman temple — where he sits enthroned like Jupiter, fasces and all — to George Washington’s obelisk, an Eqyptian monument to the god Amun-Ra. In the distance is the capitol, whose dome copies the Roman pantheon, temple to all the gods. In the top of the dome is a painting of Washington being assumed, like the divinized Julius Caesar, into Heaven upon his death. Even Jefferson is portrayed as a god in a Roman temple. Not far away is the the Greek temple where the nine supremes hand down the “law.” Then there is the vast executive apparatus, headed by a living god, and dedicated to killing, spying, taxing, redistributing, inflating, and controlling, symbolized by the Pentagram. Really, DC is one nasty place. So why would anyone concerned about the state and its power “march on Washington”? Such events only dissipate energy, and fool people into thinking that their time and money have accomplished something, as the regime laughs up its sleeve. Indeed, that is the purpose. So stay home. Read, write, work, organize, and avoid DC like the plague it is.

–Lew Rockwell, LRC

What struck me, as in the last post showing the Lincoln Memorial, is how grandiose the architecture and statuary is in D.C. Government structures are always intentionally designed to make the citizen feel small and insignificant. Have you ever driven by the local federal courthouse branch? It’s huge and imposing in order to put you in the right state of mind for control before you ever enter.

From the cover of a two-volume set, Abraham Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life by William Herndon and Jesse Weik. Published in 1892 and reprinted in 1913, both editions had the same cover. The seminary library where I currently work had both editions, but we have gotten rid of both editions. Not necessary to the mission of a seminary library today. But someone thought it was once…

–Charles Featherstone, LRC

To which David Kramer replied:

Charles—You didn’t need to find some obscure book that honors Lincoln with the symbol of Fascism. Under both his left and right hands of the Lincoln Memorial sculpture you can see the Fascist symbol sans ax head.

–David Kramer, LRC

Tom Dilorenzo then pointed out:

Charles, it is relevant that the co-author of the book on Lincoln from your library which displays the fasces, the symbol of fascism, on the cover, was Lincoln’s longtime law partner, William Herndon. He knew Lincoln as well as anyone, even better than Lincoln’s wife. And yes, as David points out, the fasces is right there on Dishonest Abe’s armchair on which he sits in his memorial in D.C. (As Clyde Wilson once said, the symbol of America has been transformed from George Washington on his white horse to a corporate lawyer/lobbyist in an armchair).

Dating from the Roman Empire, the fasces stood for Government Power and Unity. Dictatorial government that crushes all dissenters, in other words. “Unity” is coerced unity that comes from governmental military “power,” not persuasion. This is the kind of “unity” that existed in the Soviet Union, and Germany and Italy during the 1930s and early 40s. Totalitarianism, in a word.

–David Kramer, LRC

It’s disgusting that so many Americans have been duped by court historians into mock worship of politicians. Lincoln presided over the slaugther of 620,000 American lives. More than any other war in U.S. history. He deserves scorn and judgement. Not, a monument to his fascism. How is that any different than Lenin’s tomb?

This is a good recounting of the historical fact of Lincoln’s “emancipation”. It didn’t free a single slave, and Pitts is right to point that out. But, he then goes on to praise him for his obsession with the “Union”, and that’s where his logic gets all backwards:

Do you see what I mean? He says that nothing mattered more to Lincoln than preserving the Union, because he believed in government “of, by and for the people.” How in God’s name can you have a government “of” and “by” the people when those people don’t want to be governed by you anymore? Preserving the Union was only an issue precisely because those in the Southern states no longer consented to participating in governing, or being governed by, the Union. What Lincoln preserved wasn’t government of the people. No, he created government over the people. Therefore, I must once again pull out Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence:

Less than one hundred years later, Lincoln might as well have been lighting Pacific Railroad cigars with a rolled up Declaration of Independence.