Posted on 08/13/2003 6:57:47 AM PDT by bedolido
While doing my weekly shopping at the Jewel-Osco, I overheard a very unusual conversation. It was between two young baggers who were talking about an article one of them had read regarding President Lincoln. Both men happened to be black. One of them informed the other that President Lincoln cared nothing about blacks and was actually a racist. I was stunned. I wanted to interject a million things to their discussion but I didn’t. Instead, I silently watched the checker ring up my order. The incident immediately brought to mind the old commercial from the seventies where tears run down the eye of an Indian brave as he paddles across a river filled with pollutants. I felt like that Indian as I listened to President Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves, badmouthed by a couple of assistants in a grocery store.
This was the same Lincoln who, during a triumphant walk through Richmond, told a group of bowing slaves to get up because the only king they should bow to was Jesus Christ. I wanted to explain to the clerks that men should be judged by the standards of the days in which they live. Some of Lincoln’s opinions may seem outlandish today, but during the 1860’s he was one of the most enlightened men on the continent. By the standards of the nineteenth century, black Americans had no better friend than Abraham Lincoln.
Race is the biggest taboo issue in America today. Almost everyone acknowledges this but acknowledgement does not make our dialogues any smoother. I discovered this for myself the other day after I wrote a column about rap music. It was a favorable elaboration upon one wrote for City-Journal by John McWhorter. Based on my observations of urban youth, I supported McWhorter’s claim that rap music keeps blacks down through its celebration of pointless rebellion, violence, and nihilism. I received many irate responses. One of them turned into a ten email debate with a reader. By the end of the discussion, we knew a great deal about one another and, vicariously, quite a bit about discussing race in America.
Our little dispute could well have been a microcosm of the nation as a whole. It is unfortunate that I, and numerous other Caucasians, do not always emphatically state our views when asked. Yet, there are major hazards to beware of when addressing race. You never know what the reaction of the person you’re speaking to may be and no one wants to get fired over a conversation.
I could tell that the young man at the other end of the server was not used to dealing with white people like me. He only knows whites who defer to him and agree when he says that he has been wronged. He has been conditioned into thinking that all whites will apologize for their ancestry. I, absolutely, and under no circumstance, will ever apologize for my ancestors. In fact, thank G-d for my ancestors! I wish there were more Americans like them.
He began our exchange by telling me that I shouldn’t be writing about rap music at all as I don’t know anything about it. He also believes that there is nothing wrong with it and that it doesn’t harm anyone. I countered by stating that, while it’s true that I don’t know all the names of the famous rappers, I have unfortunately been subjected to a ton of it and know firsthand adolescents who emulate the words and actions of their favorite stars.
The dialogue went downhill from there (if that’s possible). There was practically no common ground between us, yet I think that is how it should be. White Americans, if they honestly responded to the claims of black separatists and black powerites, would hear little with which to agree.
Most Caucasian Americans are hard-working and middle class. There are very few like Bill Gates or Paul Allen. Most of us make a decent wage and are content with it. We oppress no one. No ancestors of mine were in the United States before 1910, but, even if they were, it would be superfluous as I personally have committed no wrongs to anyone. I told the young man that white guilt is one of the most pernicious influences within our society. Although this white guilt has not hurt our economic success, it has made many whites regard themselves as being morally inferior to the rest of the population.
He made the point that “institutional racism” is the reason many blacks “have not made it.” I told him there was no such thing. It is a creation of the university Marxists who have substituted “African-Americans, Hispanics, women and gays” for the word “proletariat.” The entire concept of “oppressed” and “oppression” is merely idiotic Marxist claptrap. It’s a product of juvenile leftists and should be disregarded. Besides, if there were such a thing as institutional racism no blacks would have ever made it. They’re be no Cedric the Entertainer’s, Deion Sanders’, Tiger Woods’ or Halle Berry’s. If there were any truth in the flawed rubric of institutional racism, all the aforementioned successful blacks would have been poor sharecroppers rather than cultural icons.
We, of course, also clashed on affirmative action. He regarded it as a prerequisite for black success. He said, “The Supreme Court finally got it right.” I, on the other hand, think, “The Supreme Court wrote more legislation.” Clearly, affirmative action is one of the reasons blacks have not been more successful since 1970. You can’t put an average student in Cal Tech and expect them to flourish. They fail and the race hustlers could care less how the experience impedes their future development. Even more grievous, is that affirmative action gives racism the imprimatur of the state. A federal stamp of approval compounds its evil.
Towards the end of our exchange, the reader admitted that he felt blacks should not have to work more than one job and do overtime to get ahead in life. Their route should be more direct. He felt long hours were for immigrants and that “we’ve already played that game.” He argued that blacks have put their blood and sweat into this country’s infrastructure and deserve reparation for their effort.
Honestly, I have no respect for this argument whatsoever. The request for reparations could not be less valid. Blacks in America already have the world’s greatest reparation: United States citizenship. Every single one of the reader’s racial cousins in Africa, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, would kill to be in his shoes. They would stow away in a mouse trap just to get here and have an opportunity to be Americans. Most of them fantasize about an existence without murderous kleptomaniac dictators and having children who are free from disease. America is opportunity and blacks are no different from whites in that we all should be forever thankful that we somehow got to these shores.
I discovered that I profited greatly from this reader. Christopher Hitchens, in his fascinating book, Letters to a Young Contrarian, informs us that the great thing about argumentation is that both sides refine and modify their positions which doing it. I hold this to be true and my exchange with the young man is evidence of it.
In this particular argument, I realized something that I never had before. Clearly, it is conservatives like me who care about poor blacks (most, in fact, are middle class) as opposed to the pseudo-liberals. We offer them the best route for advancement. We want to challenge them and make them stronger. We resist the desire to infantilize them. By treating them like adults and inculcating responsibility through achievement, they will prosper just as every other group of Americans have before them.
My opponent, perhaps unconsciously, wants them to stay poor so he can continue to berate America and critique our way of life. Were their lot to suddenly improve, he’d have no positions and no identity.
Before this conversation, I never realized just how much that I am rooting for poor black folks. I want them to be as productive as everyone else and to “make it” in America. I want no less for them than I do for myself. It would please me to no end if all our citizens were grateful for what they have. No white people get anything out of a major percentage of the population being resentful and angry.
Racial harmony can only be achieved if we treat one another as individuals and not as members of fictitious classes. If you want to be oppressed you’ll find a way to be oppressed, and such a condition damages society as a whole. Racism is wrong in any of its manifestations. We will never all get along if we continue to pretend that some of us, due to the melanin content in our skin, are better than others. Period.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bernard at bchapafl@hotmail.com .
I said Abe would go as far (and maybe half a step further) as the people would allow him at any given moment. Unlike the Radicals, he was a political realist.
I suggest you try being "factual" for a change instead of damning Lincoln for not doing the impossible.
My bad - the decision was written by John Marshall. The case is cited by Taney in ex parte Merryman.
You can read the entire decision at Findlaw
Nonsense. I have always maintained that it was and is abhorrent - from Joseph in Egypt to today. Please post a quote from me glorifying the practice.
"... Chief Justice Taney, on circuit as a federal district judge, issued a writ of habeas corpus, but he did so as a Supreme Court justice from chambers."
The case before the court in Ex Parte Bollman & Swartwout involved not who could suspend habeas corpus, but whether the court could issue a writ of habeas corpus or not. Since habeas corpus had not been suspended at the time, the court could not rule on the legality of the suspension so the Chief Justices comments on this matter constitute an obiter dictum; that which is said by the way or in passing. In law, an obiter dictum is an opinion expressed by a judge on a point of law not necessarily connected with the issue before the court. Obiter dicta have no binding authority. The comments Chief Justice Marshall made in Bollman & Swartwout concerning the suspension of habeas corpus were not part of the matter before the court. His comments on this unrelated matter have no standing in law other than an indication of how Marshall felt on that particular subject. When President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on his own authority he violated no Suprem Court decision.
Why not? Marshall wrote:
'If the act of congress gives this court the power to award a writ of habeas corpus in the present case, it remains to inquire whether that act be compatible with the constitution.'Article I, § 9 - of the Constitution, a legislative power which 'herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives', explicitly states that the 'privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.''... If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so.'
The Act in question must conform to the Constitution. The Contitution states that SUSPENDING the writ of habeas corpus is a legislative power. It's not a case where the legislature must craft legislation to put the grant into effect, it's a case where the legislature must enact legislation to suspend it. If it has NOT been suspended, the courts could obviously issue a writ. Which is exactly what Marshall had to decide. He wrote, 'the power to bring a person up that he may be tried in the proper jurisdiction is understood to be the very question now before the court.'
Only by answering the question of whether or not the legislature had suspended the writ could that question be decided. So instead of obiter dictum, Marshall's statement that the suspension of the writ is a legislative power is the foundation for the decision, not extranneous to it. Only IF the writ had been suspended by the legislature could the court be denied the 'power to bring a person up' on a writ of habeas corpus.
"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used toincrease the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."
Secession is revolution and treason, and Grier doesn't say anything else.
Walt
I didn't say that Butler was running for office, I said he was -seeking- office. Butler never, after 1865, gave up trying to regain the power he had during the war. He didn't -plan- on dying in 1893. This story of his alleged meeting with President Lincoln in April, 1865 is of a piece with that.
Discussion over on the ACW moderated newsgroup indicates that Dr. Mark Neely says that the story of Lincoln's meeting with Butler and looking favorably on deporting all blacks is a complete fabrication. You should treat it as such.
Walt
There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with a particular duty, may impress private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner.
When did the Supreme Court -explicitly- disavow, or even speak to, the Emancipation Proclamation?
Walt
It's not fortune-telling, or predicting the future. The court address seizure of property: 'Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner.'
Understand that?
lol, I was being factual. Here's the misleading (false) statement you made that I corrected:
Mr. Ditto: "Two days before his "dying day" he gave his last public address where he called for voting rights for blacks."
I corrected this by pointing out that he only called for voting rights for SOME blacks, and did so while he was separating himself from others who did want to grant rights to all. For some reason, you perceived this as a "damnation". Then, in a purely selfless and conciliatory act, I pointed out that there were more than a few Republicans who did feel about the issue the way you mistakenly thought ol' Abe did, and that you could most certainly tout them as being on "your" side. Alas, this too was perceived as some sort of "damnation" of uncle Abe, and only resulted in your asking an insensitive question regarding some violently insane little man (no doubt broiling in Hell at this very moment) who is best forgotten. But back to the initial point. If Lincoln were here, he'd tell you how wrong you were. Oh wait, he already has, in his original statement, which you initially referenced and which these last few exchanges have been about:
"It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
See, just some. His exclusionary and conditional ideas on the subject were specifically stated to seperate himself from the group he first mentions. You would deny them their credit on this issue and give it to Mr. Lincoln, who was going out of his way to make it clear he didn't agree with them. Perhaps it is you who should try to be factual.
It's not fortune-telling, or predicting the future. The court address seizure of property: 'Unquestionably, in such cases, the government is bound to make full compensation to the owner.'
Understand that?
People are not property; understand that?
This is SO typical of the neo-confederate rant. Neo-rebs will pound the table and say, "Show me where the Constitution explicitly forbids secession," but when the shoe is on the other foot, they resort to the sort of implication they won't allow from the loyal side.
Walt
VISUALISE NO LIBERALS
Why not? Because the Supreme Court can only rule on issues brought before it. It cannot issue an advisory ruling on matters which had not happened yet.
The Contitution states that SUSPENDING the writ of habeas corpus is a legislative power.
No it doesn't. The Constitution only says that habeas corpus cannot be suspended except when in cases of invasion or rebellion the public safety requires it. It does not say that only congress can suspend it. That may be inferred since the restriction appears in Article I and you seem to believe that Article I only contains items concerning the legislature. But Article I also contains restrictions on the states. So the question of who may and who may not suspend habeas corpus is not specifically limited to the legislature, and the question of who may suspend it has never been addressed by the Supreme Court.
Only by answering the question of whether or not the legislature had suspended the writ could that question be decided.
Except that you need to read the entire decision, not just the parts that, taken out of context, appear to support your position. Ex Parte Bollman & Swartwout, as the Chief Justice pointed out, involved whether the power to award a writ of habeas corpus, in such a case as that of Erick Bollman and Samuel Swartwout, has been given to the Supreme Court. It did not involve who could suspend habeas corpus since it had not been suspended.
So instead of obiter dictum, Marshall's statement that the suspension of the writ is a legislative power is the foundation for the decision, not extranneous to it.
You are mistaken. Since habeas corpus had not been suspended by anyone at the time of Bollman and Swartwout it was not a question for the court to decide. The Chief Justice's comments were indeed in dicta, and were not legally binding.
It looks to have started out with a lot of good stuff about affirmative action and what-not... before it devolved into something more suited to our WBTS crowd.
No matter, it seems my opinions on the WBTS and Lincoln are not nearly as well formed as those I retain on whether or not the government is an appropriate mechanism for "helping" the "less fortunate." Very little to debate there, if you ask me.
[Wlat 328] I didn't say that Butler was running for office, I said he was -seeking- office. Butler never, after 1865, gave up trying to regain the power he had during the war. He didn't -plan- on dying in 1893. This story of his alleged meeting with President Lincoln in April, 1865 is of a piece with that.
[Wlat 328] Discussion over on the ACW moderated newsgroup indicates that Dr. Mark Neely says that the story of Lincoln's meeting with Butler and looking favorably on deporting all blacks is a complete fabrication. You should treat it as such.
[nolu chan 313] You claim that Butler was seeking office. You document the fact that Butler's Book was published in 1892. It appears that, in reality, Butler had not sought any political office in about 8 years. If you have anything whatever to support your claim that Butler was seeking any political office in 1892, please present it.
[nolu chan 280] You claim that Butler was seeking office. You document the fact that Butler's Book was published in 1892. It appears that, in reality, Butler had not sought any political office in about 8 years. If you have anything whatever to support your claim that Butler was seeking any political office in 1892, please present it.
Could you please provide whatever evidence or source material you relied upon to make your claim that Butler was seeking office in 1892?
Could you please explain how it would have benefitted Butler to lie about Lincoln and colonization, thereby providing a motive to lie about that subject, as you have claimed?
"Discussion over on the ACW moderated newsgroup indicated," is not a source. Discussion on a nationally syndicated radio talk show would be more prestigious than an AOL newsgroup. Discussion on a nationally syndicated radio talk show indicated that George Bush was actually a lizard. Really, that is what was indicated by David Icke, author of The Reptilian Connection. It was in a published book and on a nationally syndicated talk show. You should accept it. This way you will be prepared when the news breaks that the whole world is really being run by shape-shifting lizards.
Mark E. Neely, Jr. is the author of The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. Chapter 8 is entitled The Irrelevance of the Milligan Decision. At page 184 one may read, quoting Edward S. Corwin, the McCormick Profession of Jurisprudence at Princeton University, "To suppose that such fustian would be of greater influence in determining presidential procedure in a future great emergency than precedents backed by the monumental reputation of Lincoln would be merely childish."
See, one learns something every day. Legal precedents backed by the monumental reputation of Lincoln outweigh fustian legal precedents of the United States Supreme Court.
It is in a book, and discussion around the brigade water fountain indicates the author is highly thought of. Dicky Dunn said it. It must be true. I don't even know any longer why the Supreme Court bothers to waste its time.
It is definitely a source, and properly credited for what it is.
Dr. Neely has won a Pulitzer Prize. He's written at least three well received ACW books, "Last Best Hope of Earth", "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism" and "The Fate of Liberty". The latter won the Pulitzer Prize in 1992.
Here is what I see on the ACW moderated group:
"Of course he [President Lincoln] had a chance. He simply dropped the issue. Ben Butler claimed the contrary, citing a talk with Lincoln at war's end, but Butler was rather silent about the conversation at the time, to put it nicely, and Mark Neely's suggested that Butler was manufacturing a tale."
Now, you can discount that, fine with me. I don't need a doctorate to figure out that Butler --probably-- made up the whole thing. He's the only source, and that is not credible. When you -push- this story, -you- are not credible.
Walt
Abraham Lincoln did consider slaves to be property. Try Matson v. Rutherford (111. Cir. Ct. 1847). Lincoln argued that Jane Bryant and her four children, as escaped property, should be returned to Robert Matson.
By continuing to push opinion from an AOL chat room --you-- are not credible.
I know not enough --dashes-- or *stars* to get the meaning across.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.