Today We Celebrate Freedom

For John, BLUF:  A Long Time coming.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Juneteenth

Happy Juneteenth

From IZON GOP, by Mr Dennis Galvin.

Here is the article:

June 19, 2024

JUNETEENTH AND THE SECOND AMERICAN REVOLUTION

    Prior to 1775, the history of humanity could be described as the story of masters and slaves. Starting in 1776 however, some historians believe a radical revolutionary period, championing human liberty, swept through both America and Europe for close to a century. This period ultimately changed human consciousness in western civilization. The capstone of this period was the American Civil War. One of it fruits was the destruction of American chattel slavery, commemorated now by the “Juneteenth Holiday”.

    The precipitating idea that gave rise to this century of revolutionary turmoil was the Declaration of Independence and the spirit that emanated from the words: “ all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator… with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This bold aspiration was not unopposed. In Europe, the quest for liberty was resisted and in 1848 largely defeated by the established order. In the United States, the growth of a violent proslavery cabal threatened to reduce the nation’s initial promise of freedom to a discredited fantasy.

    Yet, a determined moral spirit persisted in the United States, bringing forth a second wind of change. Historian Charles Beard asserts that this “Second Revolution” was ignited in the US in 1861. It introduced a new cast of founding fathers and a renewed spirit, sufficient to muster the resolve to achieve what the original founders could not. The eradication of slavery.

    Who were these second founders ? Certainly, former President and congressman John Quincy Adams, a distinguished son of Massachusetts was one. He confronted powerful slave interests in the US Congress, braving continuous threats of violence and harassment, to defend the “right of petition”, which allowed the northern states to continuously demand the eradication of slavery. He helped craft the Missouri Compromise in 1820, which limited the expansion of slavery into the newly acquired territories of the Louisiana Purchase.

    Another was Frederick Douglas, a self-educated former slave, who through the example of his own life, discredited the stereotypes that supported the slave interest. As a minister, he railed against the heretical claims of southern preachers, that slavery was sanctioned by Christian teaching. His condemnation and agitation against the Fugitive Slave Act (1850) and the Kansas Nebraska Act (1854) awakened the moral consciousness of the north.

    Perhaps the most powerful and articulate antebellum voice challenging the slave interests was Senator Charles Sumner, another son of Massachusetts. He brilliantly argued against claims that the US Constitution supported slavey. Sumner was brutally beaten by South Carolina slave master Congressman Preston Books because of his views. Yet in 1860, Sumner delivered arguably one of the most significant orations in US history, entitled, “ the Barbarity of Slavery”. He delivered it on the Senate floor, denouncing not only slavery, but the moral fabric of the southern culture that supported it. Sumner graphically portrayed slave society as a legal, moral and religious perversion of civilization and boldly proclaimed that freedom was the national policy of the United States.

    The southern response was secession. It was left to the courage, wisdom and foresight of President Abraham Lincoln, to preserve the union, and the military genius and determination of Ulysees S. Grant to end the conflict. It was the direct efforts of both men that ultimately led to the eradication of slavery in the United States, at a cost of one million lives, to include Lincoln’s own. An entirely new nation emerged from this struggle, one that had now affirmed its original commitment to liberty in blood.

    It is important to commemorate Juneteeth. It animates the foundational intent of our nation. Rooted in a faith in God and moral law and christened by fratricidal conflict. this revolutionary era in history testifies to the original hope and belief of the American people, that the true destiny of humanity, is to be free

END

Sources:

John Quincy Adams, “American Visionary” , Fred Kaplan Harper-Collins, NY 2014

“Charles Sumner And The Coming Civil War”, David Donald, Alfred A. Knopf Publishers NY 1967

“Rethinking The Coming Of the Civil War: A Counterfactual Exercise,” Gary Kornblith, Oxford Journal 2012

“The Rise of American Civilization”, Charles A Beard and Mary R. Beard, 2 Vols in 1 New York, 1930

The Actual Speeches of Charles Sumner- downloaded ( These are very good to read, he was an exceptional orator)

-    Freedom is National Speech

-    Crimes Against Kansas

-    Barbarity of Slavery

I fully agree with Dennis on this.

I would add two names.

• One is Author Harriet Beecher Stowe, born in Mass on 14 June 1811 and passed in 1896.  She wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which helped raise opposition to Slavery.
• The other is Robert E Lee, who knew when it was time to fold his cards and did so with dignity.  The end of the Civil War could have been a lot more ragged than it was.  Geneeral Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House,♠ accepted with dignity by General Grant, avoided large groups of guerarillas carryinhg on the fight over several more years.  That would not have changed the outcome, but would have inflilcted much more suffering on all concerned.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Lowell's Pollard Memorial Library has, on the Second Floor, a painting of the surrender.

Cause of the US Civil War

For John, BLUF:  In a nation where half the young folks think the Holocaust is a myth, we can't expect a lot of nuance regarding the origins of our Civil War, a war the Federal government is trying to erase from memory.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

New York Times' Nikole Hannah-Jones tweets the North didn't fight to end slavery in Civil War

From Fox News, by Reporter Lindsay Kornick, published May 24, 2022, 5:24pm EDT.

Here is the lede plus two:

New York Times journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones claimed on Sunday that the North did not actually fight to end slavery during the Civil War.

On Saturday night, Hannah-Jones tweeted out a quote from her controversial 1619 Project that argued that Black people "posed a danger" to the United States' perspective of itself and therefore led to the inhumanity brought by White America.

"Black people posed a danger to the country’s idea of itself; they held up a mirror into which the nation preferred not to peer.  So the inhumanity visited on Black people by every generation of white America justified the inhumanity of the past and the inequality of the present," Hannah-Jones tweeted.

Reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, tweeting with the tribute handle Ida Bae Wells, said, on 22 May 2022

How silly. The South fought to preserve slavery, the North fought to preserve the Union. Basic history.

That actually makes sense.  Candidate Abraham Lincoln didn't run in 1860 to abolish slavery, although he was a free soiler.  However, that stance was seen as a long term threat to the Southern economic system.

The controversy over Presidential Candidate Nikki HGaley's ressponse to a question regarding the cause of the US Civil War sparked this item from NPR on 28 December

Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is facing significant backlash after failing to mention slavery as a driving force behind the Civil War during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

At an event on Wednesday, a voter asked Haley: "what was the cause of the United States Civil War?"

She replied that the cause "was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms, and what people could and couldn't do."

"I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are," Haley continued. "And I will always stand by the fact that, I think, government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people."

Actually, not a bad answer on Candidate Haley's part.  The claque may not like it, but it is as good an answer as most, and shows some nuance.  However, good move by the Democratic Party to try and derail a Republican Candidate.

For Lincoln it was about preserving the Union.  Like the foolishness of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, and Germany then declaring war on us, the South played into Lincoln’s hands by attacking Fort Sumpter.  Silly rabbit. Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Road Not Taken

For John, BLUF:  War is an activity in which chance plays a large role.  In this case chance gave us the Battle of Gettysburg, but might have given us the Battle of Pittsburg.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The forts of Pittsburgh

From The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, by Reporter Salena Zito, 2 July 2023, 5:30 AM.

Here is the lede plus three:

On the afternoon of June 18, 1863, the city of Pittsburgh was thrown into a state of panic when rumors flew through the streets that Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s army had occupied the Shenandoah Valley in force — and was preparing an incursion into Western Pennsylvania. In short order, Union General William T.H. Brooks, whose command of the Department of the Monongahela was located in East Liberty, rode into the city and confirmed to a swelling and “excited” crowd that he was had received an “urgent dispatch” from General Henry Halleck, the General-in-Chief of all Union forces at the War Department.  “It is thought that an attack on Pittsburgh and Wheeling was imminent and it was recommended that both cities be put in a state of immediate defense,” Brooks told the crowd.

Within hours, the civic leaders of this city met at the Monongahela House — then the preeminent hotel in the city — where they decided it was “an imperative necessity” that thousands of men were needed to build fortifications all around the city.

Michael Kraus, an American Civil War historian and curator at the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall, says they resolved to close down all businesses in the city to gather the needed manpower:  “That included the railroads and manufacturing,” he said, adding with a smile that “they also made sure that all liquor sales were halted during the shutdown.  You can’t drink and work was their thinking.”

Every available man was put to work, with many of the companies around Pittsburgh contributing their labor forces for the work.  “It was reported to be 111 degrees in the sun and 88 in the shade, so this is tough work that they’re doing,” said Mr. Kraus.  That three-week endeavor resulted in the construction of 37 earthen redoubts — battery sites, powder magazines and small forts — spread over 12 miles across the city, as well as in Allegheny City and Millvale, he said.

What if General Lee had turned his Confederate Army West?  Would he have made Pittsburg?  Would he have won?  What would have been the economic impact on the war effort?  Would it have changed the course of the war?.

War planning means looking at the Branches and Sequels, that examine the various futures.  This is the futurable, that vast spread of possible outcomes, some favorable and some not.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Have The Tables Turned on Capitol Hill?

For John, BLUF:  Threat of a Coup (Coup d'Etat) on the part of a Democrat in Congress (New York 16th District Democrat Representative Jamaal Bowman).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Squad Member Threatens 'Civil War' If GOP Takes House

From Town Hall, by Managing Editor Spencer Brown, 14 June 2022, 10:15 AM.

Here is the lede plus one:

Democrats are scrambling to cobble together a case for why they should be reelected and maintain control in the House less than five months before the midterms, and one progressive member of the House is raising eyebrows for the explanation he made as to why Democrats should be elected in November.

Unsurprisingly, Democrats don't have much of a case to make ahead of the midterms.  Their majorities in Congress and Biden in the White House have ushered in inflation at 40-year highs, gas prices doubling in less than 16 months to set records beyond $5 per gallon, an open border, a crime crisis, and international embarrassments.  So, when two thirds of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, what case is left for Democrats to make?  Vote for us or there will be civil war.  Hoo-boy.

Joining MSNBC's The Cross Connection with Tiffany Cross over the weekend, [Representative Jamaal] Bowman — who is a member of The Squad(TM) — explained what Americans can expect if Republicans pick up seats and retake Congress this November

"Vote for us or there will be civil war."  That is not an attractive approach.  It says that if the American Voters, by some majority, back Republican Candidates, then the MINORITY! the losers, will rise up in revolution, in an Insurgency against the Majority.

If Rep Bowman was thinking a massive Voter Education program, so 2024 will go differently, then fine.  However, it sounded like he wants to change our form of government, by force, to empower Blue Areas, like LA, Chicago and New York City.  That would be morally and Constitutionally wrong and would likely evoke an armed response.  Representative Bowman would be like a modern day Jefferson Davis, walking away from a life dedicated to these United States, as West Point Cadet, Senator and Secretary of War.

Perhaps Rep Bowman believes the Democrats can pull off a coup, backed by Progressives in the Federal Buureaucracy.  Would the Biden Administration back such a move?

Where does Representative Liz Chaney stand on this?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Election Outcome

For John, BLUF:  The next five months are going to be interesting.  Not too interesting, I hope.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘Are You Ready For A Trump Victory?’: Michael Moore Sounds The Alarm After Trump Closes Gap In Michigan Poll

From The Daily Caller, by Reporter Katie Jerkivich! 28 August 2020.

Here is the lede plus one:

Michael Moore asked people if they “are ready for a Trump victory” after the president closed the gap against Joe Biden in a new Michigan poll.

“Sorry to have to provide the reality check again, but when CNN polled registered voters in August in just the swing states, Biden and Trump were in a virtual tie,” the 66-year-old filmmaker captioned his Friday post on Instagram, along with a screenshot of the results of a poll showing Biden with 49% and Trump with 48%.

Mr Moore is a pretty bright observer of the scene, so his observation should be a wakeup call for Democrats.

But, for the long range thinkers, what is it going to be like post-20 January.  Yes, there is a small chance the Speaker of the House will slide in, but the odds are it will be either Mr Trump or Mr Biden.  I think the question is what will they do in victory or defeat?  we have former SecState Hillary Clinton saying:

Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.

Will either side concede?  More important, after Congress counts the Electoral College vote, will the loser move on?  Or, will it be like the last three and a half years, or worse?  Will the losing side take to the streets to disrupt governmet, or worse?  Will the losing side go for turning out the winning side?  Or will some states secede?  That last has been suggested by Mr John Pedesto if Mr Trump wins.

Hat tip to my Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff

Tug of War

For John, BLUF:  .Tensions are rising and the rhetoric is rising.  Time to calm down a bit.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Fraying

From According to Hoyt, by Author Sarah A Hoyt, 28 October 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Have you ever been in a tug of war? One with a fraying rope?  Probably not.

I suspect most tugs of war in the US would be supervised contexts, either at school or in other circumstances.

But I’ve had tugs of war with rotting rope.  It looks fine, and suddenly it parts.  And both sides fall.  Hard.  Sometimes there are injuries.

I wonder how many people out there are oblivious to the fact that we’re in a cold civil war.

I’d known it for over a decade, back when I was reading at Classical Values and saw the situation framed in that way.

But it became clearest to me over Sad Puppies.

Look, I’m not an infant.  or a child.  I knew the establishment in science fiction was hard left.  I knew it well enough to keep my mouth shut till I couldn’t anymore.

I even knew there was a style of science fiction being pushed hard.  “Literary.”  And I know what Literary means these days.

Well, it means what it does every age, right?  The prestige writing, the type the contemporary critics value is that which displays the marks of an excellent education and hews to that which professors of literature (or the gentry, mutatis, mutandis) say books/plays/poetry should do.

As Winston said, "Jaw, Jaw, Jaw is better than war, war, war.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Blacks and Guns

For John, BLUF:  The history of Blacks and the Second Amendment is complex.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mass shootings are a call to arms for some black Americans, not a moment for gun control

Here is the sub-headline:

Black gun rights advocates say limiting access would make them more vulnerable to racist attacks, especially in the absence of real problem solving.

From USA Today, by Mr Kim Trent, 26 August 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Black Americans have had a curious relationship with firearms.  These weapons were used to keep them subdued during slavery, then terrorized in the Jim Crow south.  African-American gun advocates argue that guns also preserved our ancestors’ peace when they were menaced by racists in the antebellum South and the divided North.  They argue that, as with all social issues in America, the role of race cannot be downplayed in gun control debates.

I am an adamant proponent of what I believe to be sensible gun reform.  But I also recognize that America’s offirearm fetish won’t be addressed by folks like me having conversations in a vacuum.  So I reached out to Kofi Kenyatta, a gun rights advocate I deeply respect, to get his take on how the issue affects America in general and the black community specifically.

Those with a smattering of post-Civil War history know that "gun control" legislation was a way of keeping guns out of the hands of Black Americans.  I don't think now is the time for Blacks to walk away from the Second Amendment.  Nor other thinking Americans to walk away.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Donald Trump and Andrew Johnson

For John, BLUF:  A review, and comparison, with the first Impeachment.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

From the Blog Chicago Boyz, posted by Mr Michael Kennedy, 29 May 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

I think I see some similarities between the Democrats’ apparent efforts to try to impeach President Trump and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson in 1868.

Andrew Johnson was a “war Democrat,” meaning that he was a Democrat who supported the Union.  He was Governor of the border state of Tennessee.  Lincoln considered the border states critical in saving the Union.

“I hope to have God on my side,” Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said early in the war, “but I must have Kentucky.”  Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln hesitated to invoke divine sanction of human causes, but his wry comment unerringly acknowledged the critical importance of the border states to the Union cause.  Following the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln’s call for troops in April 1861, public opinion in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri was sharply divided and these states’ ultimate allegiance uncertain.  The residents of the border were torn between their close cultural ties with the South, on the one hand, and their long tradition of Unionism and political moderation on the other.

My thought is that while Impeachment of President Donald Trump might be good for Republicans, it would be bad for the nation as a whole.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Getting It Wrong About Charlottesville

For John, BLUF:  They had me convinced the President was looking for some common neutral ground that included the neo-Nazis and the neo-Fascists.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Didn't Call Neo-Nazis 'Fine People.' Here's Proof.

From Real Clear Politics, by Political Commentator Steve Cortes, 21 March 2019.

Here is the lede:

News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies.  The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”

My question:  If President Trump were to yotally stop Tweeting, would the Mainstream Media also back away?

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Misidentification

For John, BLUF:  See the previous post.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

‘Jerk punks’ torched a statue of General Lee.  It honors a WWII veteran, not the Confederate leader.

From The Wash Post! by Reporter Antonia Noori Farzan, 21 February 2019

Here is the lede plus four:

Just outside downtown Dunn, N.C., a historic antebellum-style house honors Maj. Gen. William C. Lee, a hometown hero often described as the father of the U.S. Army’s airborne infantry.  The World War II veteran served as the first commanding general for the 101st Airborne Division, nicknamed the “Screaming Eagles,” and helped plan the Allied forces’ D-Day invasion of Normandy.

He’s a widely respected, if somewhat obscure, military figure — which is why, after anonymous vandals attempted to torch a statue of him last week, museum officials concluded it had been a case of mistaken identity.  They suspect that the perpetrators thought they were burning a memorial to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

“This is not a Civil War museum and this is not Robert E. Lee,” Mark Johnson, the curator for the Maj. Gen. William C. Lee Airborne Museum, told WNCN on Tuesday.  “This is General William C. Lee from United States Army Airborne from World War II.”

Dunn, a city of under 10,000 people, is located in the greater Raleigh-Durham area, where some of the most heated debates over removing Confederate memorials have taken place in recent years.  In August 2017, protesters in Durham, N.C., took matters into their own hands by toppling a bronze statue depicting a Confederate soldier that sat in front of the city’s old courthouse.  A year later, activists and students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill used ropes to pull down the monument known as Silent Sam, which was originally erected in honor of UNC graduates who died fighting for the Confederacy in the Civil War.

While the vandals who targeted the memorial to William C. Lee last week didn’t leave anything behind that would explain their motivation, Johnson told the Daily Record that he thought they were trying to make a similar statement about racism and slavery.

Ed Driscoll, the InstaPundit blogger Of this item qasked:

WAS IT OVER WHEN THE CONFEDERATES BOMBED PEARL HARBOR?

The clueless iconoclasts.  How can we follow them?  They would lead us off a cliff.  Which would be painful.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Clueless at Politico

For John, BLUF:  General Robert E Lee had a pre-Civil War mindset, in which his ultimate loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, rather than the Federal United States of America.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump praises Robert E. Lee during Ohio rally

From Politico, by Writer Brent D Griffiths, 12 October 2018.

However, here is the rest of the story:

President Trump, rightly, praises the Generalship of Robert E Lee.
But, it is a setup.
It is so the President can then heap even more praise on Ohioan Ulysses S Grant, as the general President Lincoln picks to lead the Army of the Potomac in defeating the genius, Lee.

I guess that a balanced approach to history is no longer an American virtue.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Democrats Upping the Rhetoric

For John, BLUF:  Yes, the Democrats should be the Party with the red color.  They are the party out calling for revolution, waving the bloody shirt.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Michael Moore asks Bill Maher if people are ready to die to protect democracy from Trump: ‘Fascism is at the door step’

Here is the sub-headline:

Moore said that he thinks Americans can stop Trump, but only if they’re all-in.

From Nation of Change, by Mr Martin Cizmar, 2 July 2018.

The words of Mr Michael Moore, at the end of the article:

“What are people willing to commit to?  What would you give your life for?” he asked.  “What would you be willing to actually put yourself on the line for?  That moment is now.  We are going to lose our democracy if we haven’t already.  We have no choice, my friends.  We have to rise up.”

At what point is a small group of folks going to heed the words of a Michael Moore and take to the streets?  While there be killings involved?  Should Republicans worry about their homes or offices being firebombed?

Perhaps most important, what happens after 6 November of this year, if the Republicans retain control of both Houses of the US Congress?

I hope that the vast majority of Americans treat Mr Bill Maher and Mr Michael Moore as the comedians they are and not as serious revolutionaries.

Regards  —  Cliff

Where Are We Going?

For John, BLUF:  Mrs Clinton is a leader in the Democratic Party, but isn't leading us in the proper direction.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

HILLARY REFUSES TO CONDEMN THE LEFT BECOMING ‘UNCIVIL’ — CALLS FOR ‘STRENGTH’ TO RESIST TRUMP

From Daily Caller, by Mr Justin Caruso, Senior Media Reporter, 29 June 2018.

This is how it starts out:

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton rejected calls of civility in a recent interview, calling for “strength and resolve” to resist President Trump.

The Guardian reports that when asked about some on the left becoming “uncivil” recently, she responded:

“‘Oh, give me a break,’ she erupts, eyes widening into indignation.  ‘Give me a break! What is more uncivil and cruel than taking children away?  It should be met with resolve and strength.  And if some of that comes across as a little uncivil, well, children’s lives are at stake; their futures are at stake.  That is that ridiculous concept of bothsideism.'”

Clinton also mocked people who call for civility in political discourse, imitating, “Well, you know, somebody made an insulting, profane remark about President Trump, and he separated 2,300 children from their families, that’s both sides, and we should stop being uncivil — oh, and, by the way, he should stop separating children.”

Speaking of "uncivil", I think using the phrase "Failed presidential candidate" is pretty uncivil.  Not as uncivil as inviting the President's Press Secretary to leave the Red Hen, but still, at some level, uncivil. "Losing" would be better.  On the other hand, "Failed" is closer to the truth.

That said, being uncivil can reach a plateau, or dissipate, or get more harsh.  The interesting question, the important question, is what happens if it gets more harsh.  Are there any limits?  When does rhetoric turn to violence?  And once violence begins, how far does it go?  Frankly, violence seems to lead to civil war, does it not?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Is the [Far] Left Getting Ansty For A Fight?

For John, BLUF:  I don't think it would be a fair fight, once folks realized it was a fight.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at the InstaPundit, Sarah Hoyt, who was born in a nation with a Fascist Dictatorship, gives us a link to:

Uncivil war:  plenty of people must think the Red Guards were a really nifty idea…

Here is the sub-headline:

…because they’re advocating going down a road that would have an excellent chance of leading there.

The Red Guard?

From the Neo-NeoCon Blog, 25 June 2018.

Here are the second and third paragraphs:

And for those who think I’m engaging in hyperbole, please read an essay appearing today entitled “This is just the beginning.” One of the many interesting things about that sort of call for action is that if the right was anywhere near as power-mad and oppressive as the author seems to think it is, he and his fellow-travelers would already be in prison or worse. But they’re not.

As Orwell said, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Working Together

For John, BLUF:  We, as a nation, are closely divided.  We need to look for ways to work together.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

History proves that Americans can unite even when torn in two

From The New York Post, by Salena Zito, 7 April 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

APPOMATTOX, VA. — On April 9, 1865, Gen. Robert E. Lee strode onto the porch of a two-story brick home and stared out at a lawn filled with Union soldiers, his Confederate staff of two, and his horse Traveler.

Still wearing full military dress, Lee raised his gloved hands and punched his left fist into his right palm.  The sound of leather meeting leather echoed in the unsteady silence.

Then, as Lee mounted Traveler, Major Gen. Ulysses S. Grant emerged from the house onto the porch.

Now facing each other, Grant raised his hat, as did Lee. It wasn’t a salute, but clearly an acknowledgment of the moment.

As Lee turned towards the dirt road and headed east towards his troops, the 198th Pennsylvania Infantry played “Auld Lang Syne.”

The Civil War was over.

The resolution wasn't perfect, but General Grant was magnanimous.

Here is the end of the article:

As the two generals waited for their treaty to be prepared in McLean’s parlor, Grant introduced Lee to his staff, including Lt. Col. Ely Parker, a Seneca Indian, who later recalled their exchange.

“It’s good to see one real American here today,” Lee told him.

“General, we are all Americans today,” Parker replied.

Grant and Lee understood that a divided nation is a toxic nation — and that moment 153 years ago should serve as a reminder for all of us, to not just look to the bad and condemn, but to look to the good and apply it to our lives today.

We need to remember, as Americans, that things have been worse, but, working as one nation we have improved our lives.  We are not perfect, but we have come a long way, together.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

US Grant on Leadership

For John, BLUF:  US Grant, an underrated President and General.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The reflective leader: A major lesson from the memoirs of U.S. Grant

Sub-headline:

Grant's memoirs show that self-awareness and honest reflection are crucial to leadership

From Reporter and Author Thomas E Ricks, 1 DECEMBER 2017, 10:15 AM, By Best Defense guest columnist Michael Hennelly, Ph.D.

Here is the lede plus two:

I recently went to Amazon's book section and found, to my surprise, that it offers 23 different biographies of Ulysses Grant.  One of those biographies stood out.  It offered strikingly unique insights into leadership because it was written by Grant himself.  The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant provides leadership lessons that can be obtained nowhere else.

Civil War histories and Grant biographies give the impression that one of Grant's most valuable qualities was his relative imperturbability.  The fact that he did not get agitated during the course of the war was a characteristic noticed by many of his subordinates.  Sherman would always remember Grant's steadiness after that first horrible day at Shiloh.

Reading Grant's memoirs, however, made me realize that focusing on this aspect of Grant is unsatisfactory in the context of leader development.  Recommending Grant's trait of imperturbability to other leaders is the biographical equivalent of a "Keep Calm" poster.  One of the key insights of his Memoirs is that Grant taught himself to be steady amid the chaos, uncertainty and bloodshed of warfare by his habit of engaging in reflection.  He was willing to spend time reflecting on his experiences and he became very good at it.  As his example clearly demonstrates, the process of reflection is both achievable and valuable for people interested in developing themselves as leaders.

Regards  —  Cliff

The New Twenty

For John, BLUF:  Who better to honor on the Double Sawbuck.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Yes, President Andrew Jackson should be moved off the $20 bill.

I am in favor of this replacement, Harriet Tubman.

Wikipedia says:

Harriet Tubman (born Araminta Ross; c. 1822 – March 10, 1913) was an American abolitionist, humanitarian, and an armed scout and spy for the United States Army during the American Civil War.  Born into slavery, Tubman escaped and subsequently made some thirteen missions to rescue approximately seventy enslaved people, family and friends, using the network of antislavery activists and safe houses known as the Underground Railroad.  She later helped abolitionist John Brown recruit men for his raid on Harpers Ferry, and in the post-war era was an active participant in the struggle for women's suffrage.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

QUOTE: "Democracy Dies In Darkness" is not a warning, it's a goal.

For John, BLUF:  When LTC starts to restrict and dictate to City Life we will know we are all in trouble.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WaPo Editorial: Satan Is Good; Christians Are Responsible for Charlottesville

The sub-headline:

WaPo's whole "Oh, Satan. Yes, Satan" pitch does at least make one thing clear..."Democracy Dies In Darkness" is not a warning, it's a goal.

This is from The Daily Wire, Reporter John Norte, 23 August 2017.

Here is the lede:

​Every time you start to believe The Washington Post cannot go any further off the leftwing rails, along comes another sweetheart of lunacy.  Seven days ago, WaPo published an editorial justifying violence against Trump supporters.  If you thought that was some pretty far out stuff, a few days later we were served up with an editorial that openly called for banning conservative speech on campus.

So, the Press wants a new Civil War?  Maybe they think it will sell papers.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Most Important Day

For John, BLUF:  Most important after Pentecost.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

HAPPY  FOURTH

At the end of Mass on Sunday, at Saint Mary's Church in Belleville, the Choir, and the Congregation, sang the first, second and fourth verses of The Battle Hymn of the Republic.  It was inspiring.

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
  His truth is marching on.

(Chorus) Glory, Glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
  His truth is marching on.

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
  His day is marching on.

(Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
  His day is marching on.

In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free*,
  While God is marching on.

(Chorus) Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
  While God is marching on.

Still inspiring, a hundred and fifty-six years later.

Although their Lordships at The Wash Post probably think:

Yes, it is overwrought and jingoistic.  It glorifies war.  It trumpets self-righteousness.

Hat tip to the Ann Althouse Blog for that last bit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Refugees, Then and Now

For John, BLUF:  Surprisingly, not everyone wants to come to America, to become an American.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

NYT Columnist Nicholas Kristof Says The Holocaust Is America’s Fault

From the web page Red State we have Mr Joe Cunningham commenting on statements by New York Times OpEd Columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Here is the quote Mr Cunningham zeros in on:

KRISTOF:  I think that we all think that Anne Frank and the European Jews were simply murdered because the Nazis regarded them as inferior, and in some sense that's true.  But it's also true that they died because mainstream America in some sense regarded them as inferior as well.

So, basically Mr Kristof is saying that when the getting was good, we failed to open our doors and arms.  As in 1939, when we turned away refugees aboard the MS St Louis, strangely a German liner, with 908 Jewish refugees.♠  They ended up back in Europe.♥

On the other hand, in 1939 there were no death camps such as Auschwitz, which at first housed Polish political prisoners, from May 1940.  Jews began arriving in early 1942.

There was no strong voice in the United States on this issue, except for some Jewish voices.  President Franklin D Roosevelt was not a strong supporter.  A proposal to bomb Auschwitz, first raised in 1942, went nowhere.

But, what lessons can we pull from this?  I think the war in Europe from 1939 until 1945 was different from what is happening in the Middle East.  What we are seeing in the Middle East is a civil war, not only between the Sunni and Shia, and all the smaller sects, but within Islam between those who would go back to the way it was in the 700s and those who would like to accommodate more modern ways of thinking.  To quote a friend of mine:

This is a war WITHIN Islam, among Muslims, over what they want their faith to be…what they want to keep or change about their culture.  This war is being played out in Pakistan (the murder of children, lawyers, those debate blasphemy laws, women) Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Saudi, Jordan, Egypt, etc…across the Muslim world and where Muslims have gone.

This is a religious war among the faithful.

This is NOT about economics or nation state dynamics.  Sure, politics are always involved, but as most of the scholars on the Middle East and ISIS state…this is about religious images, ideology, tradition, tribe, revenge.

And then, that is the rub. Our “influence” often is seen as our arrogant, mindless, interference.  What are we going to influence them to do about their religion and culture?  Sure we can offer one way to address these issues, we can even pose hard questions to them on these questions, especially the issue of tolerance.  But these are NOT issues that respond to jobs programs, pro democracy groups.

Bringing in refugees is not the German Gastarbeiter program of the 1960s and 1970s, nor the French welcoming immigrants from the Maghreb.  Those were immigrants coming to a place with some expectation of assimilation and accommodation.  The over 1 million refugees out of Syria and other locations in the Middle East may not see themselves as being assimilated.  That may mean a culture within a culture.  Are refugee camps in Europe and the United States the best way to deal with these displaced persons or should we be finding other solutions, closer to their homes, to which they may wish to return?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  As an additional piece of information, they were also not allowed to land in Cuba or Canada.
♥  On the other hand, there is the SS Navemar, which, in 1941, brought 1,120 Jews to New York City.