Voice from the Commonwealth Commentary, World Views and Occasional Rants from a small 'l' libertarian in Massachussetts
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
.
Praise for Voice
"A smart fellow...I do like, recommend and learn from Barbera's blog." -Roger L. Simon
"Your blog is bullshit"- anonymous angry French reader.
A good deal of the rhetoric that I hear from the Reparations crowd is aimed at deconstructing Lincoln and the reasons for the Civil War. I find this repugnant on a few levels. For one, I find any attempt at distorting and willfully misinterpreting history in order for it fit a particular argument to be proof that an argument is too weak to stand on its own. Secondly it diminishes the people and events and the true message that we can get from an accurate portrayal.
In today's world we are supposed to view the thoughts actions and policies of Abraham Lincoln as somehow racist. If the pre-1862 Lincoln were alive today and not allowed access to the accumulated thought and learning of the past 140 years, then yes he would be backwards and, in the eyes of the average politically correct standard, racist. This argument is, however, about as valid as calling Albert Einstein ignorant because he couldn't code C+. The people closest to Lincoln and the events of his life would be best able to judge his character. Frederick Douglass had early reservations about the intentions of Lincoln and believed that he was no different that the others who came before. After following the words and actions of the man and meeting with him Douglass revised his impression. By the time of the Emancipation Proclamation he said of Lincoln: "the how and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln." After meeting with the President he said that Lincoln was "the first great man that I talked with in the United States freely who in no single instance reminded me of te difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color." If Lincoln was not against slavery why were the voices from the Southern Democrats so shrill in their denunciations of his plans to abolish slavery? Are we to believe that everyone is lying, because that would make the events and people fit into the version of history that the deconstructionists would have us follow?
Lincoln's second Inaugural Address is one of the most telling peices of thought offered by the President. When he wrote it it was not necessarily a reflection of popular sentiment. With victory immenent (Lee was to surrender 5 weeks later) the people of the North did not want to be told that they were paying in blood for the evil that they had allowed in their midst. They came to hear of the end of the war, triumph after a long struggle, instead they were told of the work that was left to be done. This was not aimed to boost the President's ratings (as there were none), it reflected the truth that he come to understand in the preceeding years of bloodshed. But he stood before a crowd of people (his killer watching from the gallery to his rear) and laid bare the uncomfortable truth. He stared directly at the evil face of slavery and made clear that every American must do the same before healing could come.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
The voices of dissent will dredge up the tired quote from the Lincoln-Douglass debates as definitive proof of Lincoln's racism. These people will then deflect any questions you may have about whether he ever spoke similar words before or after this singular set of events. They will lecture you on how untruthful and deceptive he was if you ask them what his thoughts were on what he said. They will then try to sell you on the fact that Lincoln was a racist because he supported colonization of the freed slaves.
These arguments could be case studies in the selective use of history. Before accepting the hand selected quotes I suggest you take the time to fully acquaint yourself with the whole of the debates. These debates stand out as one of the greatest series of debates in our history. They can be found here (this is also a must site for political history and any type of litereary reference)
As for the support Lincoln had given colonization, before just accepting that he was for it, and therefore racist, please ask what reasons he had for supporting the measure. It was not only his nor was it a proposal put forth only by the 'white power structure'. A number of black leaders supported the measure. For the same reasons it had been put forth from the beginning (since the early debates of the Continental Congress) men on both sides bevlieved that if there was complete emancipation it would be impossible for the two to live happily together. How could the freed slaves live happily among the people that had enslaved them? Why would they want to? How could former slave-owners be trusted to treat freed slaves equally? I don't think this is an invalid or racist line of questioning. 140+ years later it is easy to say well we know how they should have handled it. But when faced with the reality people will have a different reaction (for all of Europe's talk of multiculturalism and racial harmony why is it that ther is racial tension throughout the Continent? Why is there now a backlash against pro-immigration governments?). It is easy to pass judgement on the motives of the already dead, but put yourself in their place and time before doing so and you will gain new perspective on the difficulties of picking the utopian solution. And if the politicians from Jefferson to Lincoln who at one time or another proposed colonization porposed it for racist reasons they would not have supported the building of a colony that would be protected supported educated and cared for until self-sufficiency was attained. They would have taken the Stalinist approach and relocated them to a desolate place with no hope of survival. When the experiment in colonization failed, Lincoln sent the already stretched thin navy to retrieve the colonizers, tabled the measure and never spoke of it again.
As a point of pride, I learned my Lincoln at the foot of Stephen B. Oates while at the University of Massachussets. And I will take his teachings and lifelong analysis of the man over any pundit or special interest attack dog. Somewhere I have a paper I wrote in dissent of my Antrhopolgy Professor's (Helan Page) use of the Douglass Debate quote in her junior year writing class, titled Racism. To her credit she openly debated it with me and accepted that she had used it out of the more extensive and rich context that was Lincoln and his times.
I will save a look at the causes of the Civil war for later.
Powell is not going to meet Arafat. This is the first time the US has shown some spine since Powell left. Under no circumstances should an escalation in terror lead to a meeting with Arafat. By constatntly lowering demands we are removing Arafat's responsibility. "You don't have to stop (or try to stop) the attacks and you don't have to come out and tell them publicly to stop and that this will not work - we will just have a photo-op meeting with you where you can lecture our Secretary of State about how you are under attack." We never should have let up pressure on Arafat after September 11th.
As for the Palestinian leader, Fleischer said, "Today would be a very good day for Yasser Arafat to publicly denounce terrorism and show some statesmanship."
Earlier, Powell took a tough stand on what he wanted from Arafat, who is cooped up in Ramallah under Israeli-imposed isolation.
"What is important now is not just rhetoric going on into the air with no effect but action -- action that will bring this violence under control, action that will give a feeling of hope to the people in the region," he said.
The Palestinians must have a sovereign nation before there can be the beginning of a true peace process. However, before that can happen the PA and the other Palestinian groups and organizations as well as the Palestinian population have to admit that they cannot have what Arafat, Hamas, Hizhollah, al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad and the others want. This has never been shown to be their true belief. One need merely look at the charters of these groups to see what they plan for Israel. Why do we ignore what their leaders are telling us publicly?
This group reports on the school books in Israel and Palestine. It is an eye opener. And remember these books are paid for by the UN.
Correction. John Gould pointed out that I had the wrong war. Australian troops fought with the US during Korea. I googled it and found out that I was right. The Australians were there right up until '71.
We are all very good at eloquently expressing outrage at the stupidity shown by such people the Nobel Paece Prize Committee, the Norwegien Parliment, Rep McKinney and all of the rest. However, occasionally it behooves us to write thank you's to ackowledge those who do the right thing even when it may cost them. You are not going to change the world, but you may make that person's day and give them a little hope that despite the shrill reactionary voices trying to shout them down there is a much deeper and quiter voice that appreciates them and their actions.
In the spirit of that, here is a web page that links to email and contact addresses for world leaders. Those leaders that have been most vocal in their support of US action are Britain, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Poland, The Czech Republic, Pakistan, Russia and Japan.
I recently re-read Patrick henry's "Give Me Liberty" speech. It stands as such a profoundly timeless and relevant work that the President could have given it after September 11th and it would have conveyed the necessary message.
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
"Let's Roll" indeed. I find so many people today look at such words as mere rhetoric, it sounded nice and was a call to arms. It is easy to look back with a cynical eye from the relative safety and comfort of a classroom, suburban home or at our office desk. People detach the words from thier historical provenience. When Patrick Henry spoke these words and the brave men of the Continetal Congress signed the Declaration of Independence their choices indeed became "Liberty' (victory) or "Death" (defeat as traitors to Britain). This is a subject I will try to get into a bit more later.
For the scientists out there here is a neat bit of sci-fi becoming reality.
Researchers have trapped a laser pulse inside a glass chamber --and released it again intact. Such command of light could lead to mind-boggling new technologies.
On the insane Congressional watch. Rep. Cynthia McKinney thinks the President knew Sept. 11th was coming but let it happen so that he and his friends could profit.
In a recent interview with a Berkeley, Calif., radio station, McKinney said: "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it? . . . Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?" the paper said.
McKinney, a Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, issued a statement saying: "I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9/11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case."
In recent months Victor David Hanson has become my favorite author. The depth of his historical knowledge and ability to bring it to bear on what is happening around the world today is incomparable. I would recommend him to any who wish to get a better perspective on history and its relationship to the modern world. His writing leads you on a well documented journey that builds to revelations that (even if it is something that I already know) often makes me put the article down and spend a few minutes absorbing the implications. It feels almost like being walked through a mentat computation. I know this all sounds rather worshipful, but in the past few months of reading Hanson I have learned more than I have from any other single author.
Here is his most recent. An older article called "Back to the Future" is an outstanding look at some of the early aspects of the Israel Palesstine issue.
I came across this story about how the Canadians are contributing. The most interesting piece of information I got out of this story is the part about operation Harpoon. The Canadians are taking a major role in this. With 500 Canadian troops and 100 Americans. They are putting more soldiers in the line of fire and complaining less than almost every other one of our allies. Except for the Australians. A lot of people forget they were there with us in Vietnam. Why do we forget? Because they don't constantly complain about it. They did what they saw as right and left it at that.
Thinking about morality and the war and us and them and came up with something that is still coalescing:
To the people who think that Arafat is a more legitimate and representative leader than Sharon (then again these people think the same of Castro). How is it that Israel's leaders have elections and approval ratings while Arafat has a pistol on his hip?
As for the morality and propriety of the American people. Had 19 Americans been directly responsible for the murder of 3,000+ Saudis or Egyptians: Would either of those governments have told their people to understand that the constant hatred and threats may have played a role in the attacks and that maybe they should reconsider their stances before condemning Americans? Would there have been open discussions on TV, Radio, in print and even within the government on how to respond? Would Americans still be free to come to and move about their countries? Would the Americans living there be free to come on TV to write articles or lecture in schools, in order to show the American side of the issues? Would Americans and their sympathizers be safe or would they have been shot, chained to trucks and their bodies dragged into squares where their corpses would be hung up and kicked by men women and children? Would thousands of Americans have gathered and burned Egyptian and Saudi flags, chanted "death to Saudi Arabia death to Egypt"? Would the most an American living in either of these countries had to fear from those governments been voluntary interviews and possible deportation if they were found to be here illegally? Would there have been a single paper in either of those countries that said on the front page that they should not rush to war and denunciation of America? Would there be Americans or natives from these places on TV or in print there saying that this act should not be cause to cast all Americans as evil and hateful?
When Europe tells us how to prosecute the War in Terror since they have been dealing with it for years. Should we hope that by listening we can achieve their status quo of the occasional car bomb, government official assassination or street violence? Should we take the example of how the Brits have dealt with IRA, the French with Algerians or the Spanish with the Basque separatists? The prison where IRA prisoners were kept was closed to any outside agencies or any kind of press until very recently. And look at Belfast. Now that our cities are a major target for terror, is that how our cities will have to look, because it would be improper to go to war? There is now talk of war crimes against the French generals in charge of suppressing Algeria. And the Basques in Spain have gotten no better.
Everyone who thinks that America's response is too much needs to remeber that we have to think first of what will ensure the continuation of our existence, not what will make the Middle East, Europe, Asia or Africa happy. They also need to accept that this is not a one dimensional war. There has been a great deal of other activity going on. Intelligence, financial and diplomatic.
"Beware the flawed premise". We, too often let people get away with it.
If ever there was need for further proof of media bias. I note that in all coverage of the lawsuits filed against CFR the papers and network news constantly remind us that Ken Starr and the NRA are leading the charge against CFR. They make it seem if this is some 'simplistic' 'unilateral' attack. We rarely hear mention of Floyd Abrams, Kathleen Sullivan or the ACLU.
And here is what the ACLU has to say. Why isn't this the lead when talking about the fight against CFR? Oh, wait. Silly question.
When I first heard Powell was going to make the trip I was guardedly optimistic. I hoped that he would be carrying a stronger version of the message that President Bush laid down in his speeches preceeding Powell's departure. The hope was that Powell would not be holding discussions, he would be telling the Arab leaders exactly what they were going to do in order to end this. Unfortunately it has not played out this way at all, every mile further east that Powell travels, the message seems to weaken. It is unfortunate, because this could have been a great opportunity. Most pundits and commentators seem to have forgotten that Powell is a 4 star general and former Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the man who orchestrated the devastating campaign against Iraq 11 years ago. here in America there may be some dispute as to how much of a Dove Powell may be, but when he walks into a room of Arab leaders (and in the case of Arafat, a 'leader' who supported the country Powell wrought defeat on) I can assure you they see him as a conqueror. The Arab papers would croak that Bush is sending his lackey to try and force Arafat to do the bidding of the Zionist Cabal, but in person each of these leaders would by physically reminded of the last Arab defeat (regardless of the fact that they were on our side, in thoery, at the time). It would have been a very powerful statement if he had been in uniform when he arrived in Jordan. With the strong undertones of America's power that his image presents to th Arab world, I think that he could have forced the Arab leaders to come out with a unified statement against terrorism.
I know words are words are words and no amount of words can equal a decisive action. But by giving a forceful directive to the Arabs Bush/Powell could have laid the foundation for truly measuring who is with us and who is against us. If Powell can get the Arabs leaders to denounce and take some steps toward cutting off the terrorists, that would leave Hamas, Hizbollah, al-Aqsa, Islamic Jihad and the others fighting against what the leaders would be saying publicly. Hopefully this would then divide the Palestinians into those who are truly 'freedom fighters' and wish to have their homeland and those who just want to extirpate Israel. If they cannot be made to come out in favor of ending terror and bringing stabilty and peace to the region, how nuanced and non-simplstic do we need to be before we just become appeasers who are blind to the hatred that they constantly throw in our faces?
An observation. For all of the talk of Sharon 'defying' orders from Bush. For some reason the large sums of money we give to Israel are supposed to assure they do whatever we command. However, the greater sum we give to Egypt (per the Camp David Accords) doesn't garner America the influence to take anti-American and anti-Semitic slander and lies out of their newsapers.
A quick question. What reaction would CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, et al if Ariel Sharon were to be murdered by an Arab tomorrow? Now ask yourself what their reactions be if it was Yasser Arafat murdered? What would the reaction of either leader's followers be and how would major media outlets report it? What does your answer say about our media.
Where to start? I guess, a take on the war that I haven't seen addressed. In all of the talk of root causes and al-Qaeda itself there seems, to me, that there is no investigation into the connections and the question of 'Why now?'. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks and the constant warning and threats coming from the more radical parts of the Ummah, I started to view September 11th in relation to another movement in our history.
The Copperheads of the American Civil war era (the parallel between the Copperheads and today's anti-war movement is something for another day) movement made up of 'Peace Democrats' who were, ostensibly, opposed to the war. In fact, a number of the movement's leaders were conspiring with the Confederate Secret Service to conduct raids, uprisings and riots throughout Ohio, Illinios and Indiana. They planned to free Confederate P.O.W.'s to escape into Canada or to make their ways back to their outfits. The Copperhead leaders told the Confederate agents that an uprising consisting of more than 200,000 armed members and sympathisers would follow any major Confederate action or raid in their region. This army would attack the Union lines from the rear and, when reinforcements came from the East, the war could be brought to an end. Needless to say, when the opportunity presented itself, the armies never appeared. Once the time for action came the vast majority of fire-eaters found themselves otherwise preoccupied.
I see a similar pattern to the people and news on the fringe of Sept. 11th. I think it possible that Bin Laden and his immediate advisors had information from the more virulent and anti-America/West Imams and others that following a brazen display of power, to show America as the paper tiger they have come to expect and our allies to be no more substantial, they could affect a mass uprsing that would burst forth from the Madrassas and Mosques to carry on a Jihad (for all the talk of peace and how the word is misinterpreted, please let us use the word as the 'Arab Street' does) that would sweep the corrupt (read American backed) Monarchs from power, declare Usama the Caliph (or Mahdi depending on how far he wants to take it) and begin the open conflict to bring the West under the sway of the Khilafah.
Hmmmm......Well here it goes. Every day I have been checking a bunch of the Blog sites out there and have decided that maybe I have something to offer. Just for a little background. I am a graduate of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. I majored in Near Eastern Studies and Archaology and came up 9 credits short of an additional major in History, but had decided that 6 years was long enough. I was born in Greensburg PA and have lived in NJ, SC, OH, MA and Singapore and have seen quite a bit of the world. I consider myself fairly well read and have some fairly strong viewpoints with maybe some hopes of someday running for public office. Hope you enjoy.
The Western Civilization and Democracy Net Ring celebrates Western civilization and its universal values of individual freedom, political democracy and equal rights for all. All sites promoting human rights and democracy are welcome.
