On Abraham Lincoln and the Inversion of American History
By Boyd D. Cathey • April 15, 2015 • 1,700 Words • 15 Comments
• Reply
shutterstock_115238551
Back in 1990 in Richmond, Virginia, as part of the Museum of the Confederacy’s lecture series, the late Professor Ludwell Johnson, author and professor of history at William and Mary College, presented a fascinating lecture titled, “The Lincoln Puzzle: Searching for the Real Honest Abe.” Commenting on the assassination of Lincoln now 150 years ago, here is a portion of Dr. Johnson’s prepared remarks:
[After his death] for many, Lincoln became a symbolic Christ, for some, perhaps, more than symbolic. They could scarcely help themselves, the parallels were so striking. He was the savior of the Union, God’s chosen instrument for bringing the millenium to suffering humanity, born in a log cabin (close enough to a stable), son of a carpenter. . . . He was a railsplitter (close enough to carpentry), a humble man with the human touch, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, called by his followers to supreme greatness, struck down by Satan’s minions on Good Friday.
Said one minister in his Black Friday sermon: ‘It is no blasphemy against the Son of God and the Savior of Men that we declare the fitness of the slaying of the second Father of our Republic on the anniversary of the day on which he was slain. Jesus Christ died for the world, Abraham Lincoln died for his country’. . . . Another spoke of his ‘mighty sacrifice . . . for the sins of his people.’ Yet another proposed that not April 15, but Good Friday be considered the anniversary of Lincoln’s death. ‘We should make it a movable fast and ever keep it beside the cross and grave of our blessed Lord, in whose service for whose gospel he became a victim and a martyr.’
For years after the war the rumor persisted that Lincoln’s tomb in Springfield was empty. Lincoln was also frequently compared to Moses, who led his people to the Promised Land that he was not allowed to enter, and, like Moses after viewing Canaan, was taken by death.
It is right and fitting, then, given the legacy now increasingly laid at Lincoln’s feet, the resultant and seemingly unstoppable growth of the “Behemoth” managerial state that has occurred since his presidency, and the anniversary of his death, to examine again his actual meaning in the context of our history.
Probably too much has been written about Abraham Lincoln. Most school age children know almost nothing about him, except that “he freed the slaves,” which, of course, is patently untrue: he freed not one slave. Yet, his looming presence as a pre-eminent national lodestar, his role as a kind of holy icon after death, and the radical task he accomplished in completely restructuring the original American nation that the Founders created, remain constantly with us. In a real and palpable sense, as the text excerpted from Professor Johnson shows, Lincoln immediately became the founder and canonized “saint” of a “new” nation, in which the ideas of “democracy” and “equality” were enshrined as bedrock principles.
As the late Professor Mel Bradford illustrates abundantly in his signal volume, Original Intentions, with Lincoln and his successors, concepts rejected outright by most of the Founders and eschewed by the Authors of the Constitution, replaced the original understanding of what this nation was supposed to be and represent. The Gettsyburg Address makes clear that Lincoln based the American founding on the Declaration of the Independence (“Four score and seven years ago….”) and on his shaky reading of that war time document.
As such, today the “high crimes and misdemeanors” that are the most heinous, the most grave, in our benighted land are “crimes” against “equality,” whether committed against racial minorities, or against “women,” or against homosexuals who want to force the rest of us to fully accept their lifestyle…and “crimes” against “full democracy,” including voter IDs, and preventing illegals from full participation in all the goodies that the Federal government can dole
This is not to say that there is an unbroken, direct line connecting the “Lincolnian Revolution” of the 1860s with the public and private defecated culture and corrupt and managerial political system that engulf us today. Indeed, the history of the USA since 1865 is filled with vicissitudes and “curves and variations.” It would be unfair perhaps to blame Lincoln directly for these present happenings. Indeed, more than likely, as a 19th century liberal, he would be offended and shocked by much of what besets us today culturally and socially. But Lincoln, like other leaders of 19th century Liberalism, opened the door to future, much more radical change. So, while it is assuredly not correct to hold him responsible for, example, same sex marriage, there is a torturous genealogy that can be traced without injury to the historical narrative.
Of those radical changes that came as a result of the Lincolnian Revolution and that directly affect us today, the cataclysmic effects of the (illegally passed) 14th Amendment must be highlighted. Indeed, one could suggest that it is under the rubric of the 14th Amendment that most all of our present decay and distress has occurred. If there had been no 14th Amendment, would most of the horrendous court decisions we’ve seen have been rendered? Yet, the 14th Amendment grows directly out of the consequences of Southern defeat in 1865, in a War begun by Abraham Lincoln.
Certainly, there are those who would argue that the “Reagan years” or even the 1920s represented respites in this ongoing revolution. Nevertheless, the general and overwhelming propulsive movement, the historical dynamic, has been in just one direction. In sum, the triumph of the Lincolnian Revolution in the American nation was, in fact, the real triumph of the 19th century “Idea of Progress” and the belief in the inevitable and continuing liberation and enhancement materially and intellectually, of human kind.
It is interesting, I think, to focus the great Iliad of the Confederacy in the context of the brutal and vicious universal war between the forces of 19th liberalism and the forces of tradition and counter-revolution. The Confederacy, the old South, played a not unimportant role in that conflict, and, even if most Southerners did not recognize that context at the time, many European traditionalists, Legitimist royalists, and Catholics most certainly did.
In my research over the years, specifically while I studied in Spain and Switzerland, and then taught in Argentina, I was struck by the fact that almost without exception, all 19 th century traditional conservatives, Legitimists, and Catholics not only favored the Confederacy in its crusade against the North, but they did so enthusiastically, to the point that thousands of European traditionalists found their way to cities like New Orleans to volunteer to fight for the Confederate cause. As many as 1,800 former soldiers of the old Bourbon Kingdom of Naples (Two Sicilies) arrived in Louisiana in early 1861 to offer their services to the South after their defeat by the arms of the liberal Kingdom of Piedmont-Savoy. Volunteers from the Carlist Catholic traditionalists in Spain came by way, mostly, of Mexico. According to Catalan historian, David Odalric de Caixal, as many as many as 4,000 Carlists enlisted in Confederate ranks, many in the Louisiana Tigers (see M. Estella, “Un historiador investiga la presencia de carlistas en la Guerra de Secesion,” El Diario de Navarra [Pamplona], December 9, 2011). French Legitimists (the “ultra-royalists” who opposed the “democracy” of the Citizen-King Louis Philippe) also volunteered, mostly notably the Prince Camille Armand de Polignac, a hero of the battle of Mansfield.
The Italian Duchy of Modena, under its duke Francesco V (called by modern writer and historian Sir Harold Acton, “the most reactionary ruler in all of Europe”), actually recognized the Confederacy. And Pope Pius IX offered de facto recognition to the Confederate cause, and his sympathies were quite open, as were the Confederate proclivities of the official publication of the Vatican, “La Civilta Catolica.” The Crown of Thorns that Pius IX wove with his own hands for President Jefferson Davis while Davis was a post-war prisoner in Fortress Monroe remains in a museum in New Orleans, a memorable relic of papal sympathy for the Confederacy.
And who can forget the favor given by and collaboration of the Habsburg emperor of Mexico, Maximilian? It was to his empire that many Confederate soldiers fled after Appomattox and Palmito Ranch. (Recall the John Wayne classic, “The Undefeated,” and other cinematic representations of that relationship?)
The traditionalist press in Europe openly believed that the Confederacy was part of a much greater conflict—a conflict, a universalized war, to halt the advance of the effects of the French Revolution, and to–if possible–reverse the worst aspects that resulted from the opening of that Pandora’s Box. And in particular, they visualized the Confederacy as a co-belligerent in the effort to stop the growth of “democratism” and “egalitarianism.”
Certainly, one can debate if this vision by European traditionalist conservatives was completely valid, or mere fancy. But the reasons supporting it, given our subsequent history, are strong in an ex post facto way.
What we are talking about is, then, the triumph in the 19 th century of a radical transformation in the way our society and our citizens look at history and change. Indeed, the result was the enthronement of the “Idea of Progress” as the norm, such that movement in history always is “progressive” or, better described, “a la Sinistra”–to the Left. And, given this template, does not the ongoing Leftward—”progressive”—movement of both Democrats AND Republicans in the US, as well as both Socialist and establishment “conservative” political groupings in Europe, make sense?
Until this narrative–this sanctified and blessed “progressivist” idealization–is overturned and reversed, we shall continue to be at the mercy of faux-conservatives who continue to lead us into more Revolution, even if by a slightly different route from the hardcore revolutionaries.
Thus, Professor Johnson’s account of the apotheosis of Lincoln and the enshrining of the “Lincoln Myth” go hand-in-hand with the mythologization of Garibaldi in Italy, or of Louis Blanc in France, as symbolic of what happened to an older, pre-Revolutionary civilization…and to the “exceptional” American nation along the way.
In the USA it really began in earnest, as Ludwell Johnson recounts, almost immediately after Lincoln’s death, and it continues full force today.
Justplainbill's Weblog 
Flag of Contention, by Cmdr Matt Shipley, USN (SEAL) [c]
Flag of Contention
Jun
30
In the wake of the Charleston, South Carolina Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shootings on June 18, 2015, Governor Nikki Haley called for the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from the State capital’s flagpole. Regrettably, even if her call for action is successful, it would do no more to change the reasons behind the hatred that drives one human to kill others than legislation to ban the “N” word would go towards closing the inaccurately named “racial” divide.
Confederate Flag and Black Soldier
Many people look at the behavior of the rioters in Ferguson, Missouri in August, 2014 and in Baltimore, Maryland in April, 2015 and make excuses for them such as, “They are angry and have no other way of expressing their anger.” But, the same people look at the illicit behavior of white supremacists and say, “They are bigots and they have no excuse.” In their sentiments towards the white supremacists, they are absolutely correct, but they need to apply the same standard equally to people of every skin color. Bad behavior is bad behavior no matter who does it or for what reason it is done.
Despite the unequal application of a standard, there is another relevant point one can extract from these observations. When people are unjustly treated and when they have no viable means to address their grievances, they often turn to hatred and violence as an outlet.
The United States has much to atone for in its history and two of the most divisive matters in need of atonement are the treatment of African Americans in our nation, especially after the institution of slavery ended, and Lincoln’s War against the South which is commonly and inaccurately known as the “Civil War”. These two breaches of justice are closely related, but not as most people in America today believe they are.
One of the reasons the Confederate Battle Flag is still a potent symbol over one-hundred and fifty years after the war ended is because that war was an injustice done to the South which has never been appropriately addressed by our national government and is still an open wound. In addition, the oppression of the Southern culture through the national policy of Reconstruction deepened that wound to ensure that it would never properly heal without significant atonement.
Lincoln’s war was an injustice done to the South because, according the Tenth Amendment, every State has always possessed the power of secession, and the Constitution only authorizes Congress to call up troops, not the President.[1]
Lamentably, it was under the policy of Reconstruction that unrighteous southern animosity grew against former African slaves, mainly because the Republican Party used the former slaves as pawns in a political chess game to further their party’s interests by oppressing southern whites, who were mostly Democrats. Additionally, the Republican Party, ex post facto, used slavery as a means to justify the unjust war they perpetrated and the unjustifiable oppression they imposed upon the South after the war.
During Reconstruction, the northern occupiers disenfranchised white southern voters and enabled former slaves to vote and run for office. The northern occupiers also, among many other oppressive actions, confiscated property from southerners and gave some of the property to former slaves. Whether the animosity that grew out of these actions was justified or not, it did not sit well with the southern white population.
The southern whites, who could do little to change the economic and social oppression imposed upon them, turned against blacks as if they were the cause of the calamity. Even to this day, over one-hundred and fifty years later, one can still see the economic scars in the South left by Lincoln’s War and Reconstruction, and one can still feel the hatred of blacks for something for which they are blameless.
For the sole reason of righting wrongs, we should take pause before relegating the Confederate Battle Flag to museums. Regardless of its modern misuse, that flag is a symbol of liberty; it is a symbol of our nation’s Second War of Independence and it should be honored as such by people of every skin color. Without a doubt, slavery was wrong, but, according to Lincoln, in his first inaugural address, his executive order[2] calling up troops on April 15, 1861, and his address to Congress on July 4, 1861, the abolition of slavery was not why he led the northern States to war against the South.[3]
In order to atone for the wrongs against the South, our national government should recognize that the South had a justifiable reason for secession that had nothing to do with slavery, [4] that Lincoln unconstitutionally took our nation to war, [5] that States still have a constitutional right to secede from the union if the national government breaches our national contract,[6] and that what Congress did to the South via Reconstruction was unjust. By taking these steps, white supremacists will no longer be able to perpetuate the myth that the Confederate Battle Flag is a symbol of oppression and it will take away the genesis of their hatred, whether they choose to recognize it or not.
The overwhelming majority of the men who fought for the Southern cause in the 1860s did not own slaves. Additionally, slavery was a labor practice that denied them job opportunities. It is, therefore, irrational to believe that non-slave owning southerners fought to maintain slavery or were willing to die to maintain the right to oppress black people.
Confederate Soldiers
Accordingly, the people who use the Confederate Battle Flag as a symbol of oppression and hatred do not accurately represent the people who fought under that banner in the 1860s and shame on anyone who uses it as a symbol of hatred. They do not help their cause with misdirected anger and illicit behavior. We, as a nation should stand united with our brothers and sisters of all skin colors, as one human race, and instead fight against the civil government that takes away our liberty with nearly every bill it passes. May the Holy Spirit comfort the survivors and families of the victims of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church shootings and may God the Father guide our nation into true reconciliation through His Son, Jesus Christ.
[1] The power to call up troops to suppress an insurrection is an Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 power.
[2] Lincoln called his order a Proclamation, but it was an executive order by another name.
[3] American Founding Principles, A War to End Slavery, November 26, 2012.
[4] American Founding Principles, The Death of a Nation, January 20, 2014.
[5] American Founding Principles, The Case Against Succession, November 2, 2013.
[6] American Founding Principles, Can States Constitutionally Secede from the United States?, November 19, 2012.
Share this:
Share
Related
Slavery in AmericaIn “13th Amendment”
Memorial Day Speech 2012 Westminster, MDIn “Speeches”
Can States Constitutionally Secede from the United States?In “10th Amendment”
This entry was posted on June 30, 2015, in 10th Amendment, Commentary and tagged cause of the Civil War, Church shooting, Civil War, Confederacy, Confederate Flag, EAME Churgh, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, hate, liberty, Lincoln, national atonement, race relations, racism, racist, reconciliation, Reconstruction, white supremacy. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment
Post navigation
← The Supreme Court in the Age of Relativism
One thought on “Flag of Contention”
[justplainbill says:
June 30, 2015 at 10:40
Well said. There are several reference works posted on the book list at http://www.justplainbill.wordpress.com that support every word posted here. Just off the top of my head are: Bruce Bartlett’s, “Wrong on Race”, several works on both reconstructions (there were two official reconstructions, and several hidden works on how Woodrow Wilson eliminated all Blacks from supervisory positions in the federal civil service, and how FDR’s National Recovery Act, aka Negro Ruination Act permitted institutional racial discrimination in both management and labor, both organized and unorganized), and of importance almost as much as the fact that they were removed from bookshelves during the Clinton Administration, the same as trying to google Indonesian Adoption Laws, are Freehling’s “Secession Debated; Georgia’s Showdown in 1860″ and his “Nullification; The 1828 South Carolina Crisis”, Thomas Sowell’s “Intellectuals and Race”, Richardson’s “The Death of Reconstruction”, Freehling’s “Prelude to Civil War”, MacDonald’s “States’ Rights and the Union, Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876″, Neely’s, “The Union Divided”, and The Kennedys’ “The South Was Right”. Oh, and for all the vilification they receive from the left, de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”, and Calhoun’s, “A Disquisition on Government”.]