And that online bio is shared by several sites, including the Columbia Encyclopedia Online. Would you prefer the print version of the Encyclopedia Britannica?
After reviewing his literary failures to 1909, the Britannica notes, "If Masters had continued to write along these lines, he would not be remembered, but in 1909 he was introduced to Epigrams from the Greek Anthology. Masters was seized by the idea of composing a similar series of free-verse epitaphs in the form of monologues. The result was Spoon River Anthology (1915), in which the former inhabitants of Spoon river speak from the grave of their bitter, unfulfilled lives in the dreary confines of a small town.... Masters wrote [a biography] of Lincoln, Lincoln the Man (1931), in which Masters' attacks on Lincoln were poorly received by critics and historians."
I have no obligation to respond to your Masters post, because Masters is no sort of authority. You appreciate his work because of the misrepresentation and hate it contains. Need I say more?
Of course, you always go for the card-carrying Socialist or Communist. That is what California radical liberals do. Others may choose to prefer a Jeffersonian.
I demonstrated Sandburg to have knowingly published false information to perpetuate the Lincoln myth and sell books. You are unable to demonstrate similar fallacy in the material I quoted from Masters.
As for being a hack poet, The Spoon River Anthology by Edgar Lee Masters continues to sell:
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 18,983.
By contrast, the best-selling item by Carl Sandburg is The Complete Poems of Carl Sandburg: Revised and Expanded Edition.
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 94,239
And let us give recognition where recognition is due. There is Back to Basics for the Republican Party, Third Edition by Michael Zak . Let's hear it for our favorite hack of all. B2B has cracked the Amazon.com top half million.
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 493,808
Bubba was in the fertilized egg business. He had several hundred young layers called pullets and eight or ten roosters, whose job was to fertilize the eggs.Bubba kept records and any rooster that didn't perform went into the soup pot and was replaced. That took an awful lot of Bubba's time so Bubba got a set of tiny bells and attached them to his roosters. Each bell had a different tone so Bubba could tell from a distance, which rooster was performing. Now he could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report simply by listening to the bells.
Bubba's favorite rooster was old Brewster, a very fine specimen he was too. But on this particular morning Bubba noticed old Brewster's bell hadn't rung at all! Bubba went to investigate.
The other roosters were chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing. The pullets, hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover. BUT, to Bubba's amazement, Brewster had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.
Bubba was so proud of Brewster, he entered him in the county fair... and Brewster became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result...
The judges not only awarded Brewster the "No Bell Piece Prize" but they also awarded him the "Pulletsurprise" as well.
Clearly Brewster was a Democratic Politician. Who else could figure out how to win two of the most politically biased awards on our planet by being the best at Sneaking up on the populace and Screwing them...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/departments/right_answers/1999/vo15no10_answers.htm
Q. Did the poet Carl Sandburg ever win a Pulitzer Prize? Was he active politically?
-- P.K., Roswell, GAA. Carl Sandburg (1878-1967) won a Pulitzer in 1940 for his four-volume work Abraham Lincoln: The War Years. A onetime hobo who never graduated from college, Sandburg held a variety of jobs - from porter, to milk truck driver, to brickyard hand, to hired hand in the wheat fields of Kansas.
Sandburg was active in the Socialist Party in Wisconsin for at least a decade. Between 1910 and 1912 he was an organizer for the Social Democratic Party and was secretary to the mayor of Milwaukee.
These facts are available in standard reference works. Less well known is that Sandburg was not just a parlor pink, but worked closely with the Communists as they organized in this country. Maurice Malkin, a charter member of the Communist Party, described how Sandburg brought funds from Lenin intended for Santeri Nuorteva, a Finnish Red leader who organized radicals and subversives in this country (and who was deported to Moscow in 1920). Malkin recalled how U.S. Customs authorities in New York detained Sandburg, who even had a check for $10,000 taken from him by the officials.
Malkin, as he wrote in Return to My Father’s House (1972), noted that Sandburg "was one of the mainstays among American intellectuals, and had gone to the Scandinavian countries and Finland as a correspondent - and as a Soviet courier. We had eagerly awaited his return with an important message from Lenin and a large quantity of money and literature."
Soon after, Sandburg appeared at Communist headquarters in New York City in the company of the longtime legal representative of the Soviet government. The poet had been permitted to retain the "messages from Lenin, which were later translated as A Letter to American Working Men and published in The Revolutionary Age and The Liberator." For decades thereafter, Sandburg remained, as former Comrade Malkin put it, a "loyal friend of the Soviet Union...."
At the Claremont Institute:
http://www.claremont.org/weblog/001159.htmlThis includes modern left wing "scholars" such as Foner and McPherson. It includes several well known Lincoln writers of the past such as Carl Sandburg, who in his lifetime held affiliations with several communist organizations. But most of all, it includes the granddaddy of all things communist and all things on the political left: Karl Marx himself. Marx personally adored Lincoln in his own lifetime and spent much of the civil war writing editorials in the papers on Lincoln's behalf - an effort he undertook to sway European opinion. He viewed Lincoln as a hero of the working class who was to deliver America through its next revolution in the hegelian procession towards a communist state.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/United+States+Socialist+Party
United States Socialist Party - encyclopedia article about United States Socialist Party.Prominent members included Victor L. Berger, Ella Reeve Bloor, Earl Browder, James Connolly, Eugene V. Debs, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster, Bill Haywood, Morris Hillquit, Helen Keller, Jack London, Theresa S. Malkiel, Mary E. Marcy, Scott Nearing, Kate Richards O'Hare, Mary White Ovington, A. Philip Randolph, John Reed, Victor Reuther, Walter Reuther, Bayard Rustin, Carl Sandburg, Margaret Sanger, Upton Sinclair, Rose Pastor Stokes, Norman Thomas and Frank P. Zeidler.
No, you have more than adequately demonstrated your incompetence in all things legal.
capitan_refugio #237 argued that "Bollman was not about habeas corpus...."
capitan_refugio #384 capitan purported three quotes to be about the SCOTUS case of Scott v. Sandford which were actually about the Missouri case of Scott v. Emerson.
capitan_refugio #386 told the story of how SCOTUS decided the case of Lemmon v. The People. The case never went to the Supreme Court.
capitan_refugio #649 purported to quote from the Opinion of the Supreme Court in The Amy Warwick. The quote was of the argument Mr. Carlisle, an attorney in the case of The Brilliante.
capitan_refugio #1370 attributed a quote to "Hamdi footnote." It was neither Hamdi nor a footnote. It was from a petition by an attorney.
capitan_refugio #2355 brags that "Jack Rakove has a 1975 PhD from Harvard and is currently the Coe Professor of History and American Studies at Stanford University. I think most people would consider his work both scholarly and authoritative."
If you are going to make believe you have intellectual leanings, learn the names of the people of whom you purport to have passing knowledge. It is Salieri and not "Solieri."
You may have Sandburg's Marx. I prefer Masters' Jefferson.
United States Socialist Party: "Prominent members included... Carl Sandburg."
Whittier, in the calm of New England righteousness, fastened the name Ichabod on Webster, for his speech of March 7, without any leniency toward him, or consideration for the fact that Webster had been crowded out of his former logic by the giant strength of Calhoun, in whom he found no mere orator, as he had found in Hayne. Webster crossed swords with Calhoun in February of 1833. Calhoun referred to what Webster had said in 1830 in the Hayne debate: "But I am resolved not to submit in silence to accusations either against myself individually, or against the North, wholly unfounded and unjust -- accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the Constitutional compact." There, said Calhoun, he used the word compact, which he now has rejected. And he has flouted the word accede to the Constitution which Washington and Jefferson employed. Then he referred to what Webster had said in the instant debate: "The Constitution means a government, not a compact ; not a constitutional compact, but a government. If compact, it rests on plighted faith, and the mode of redress would be to declare the whole void. States may secede if a league or a compact." "I thank the Senator for these admissions," said Calhoun. "It does not call itself a compact, but a constitution," said Webster. "The Constitution rests on a compact, but it is no longer a compact." Calhoun rejoined, "I would ask to what compact does the Senator refer, as that on which the Constitution rests? Before the adoption of the present Constitution, the states had formed but one compact, and that was the old Confederation; and certainly the gentleman does not intend to assert that the present Constitution rests upon that. What, then is his meaning? What can it be but that the Constitution itself is a compact? And how will his language read when fairly interpreted, but that the Constitution was a compact, but is no longer a compact? . . . He next states that 'a man is almost untrue to his country who calls the Constitution a compact.' I fear the Senator, in calling it a 'compact, a bargain,' has called down the heavy denunciation on his own head. He finally states that 'It is founded on compact, but not a compact.' 'It is the result of a compact.'"Not only was it a compact, but it was an executory compact. The sovereign states had covenanted with each other that the general government should guarantee to every state a republican form of government; that full faith and credit should be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state; that slaves and apprentices should be returned, when escaping, by the state into which they escaped, and without further detailment the Constitution required continual performance of its agreements. It was money and power on the one side which wanted what it called a sovereign nation; it was fear of money and power which wanted a confederated republic. This was the issue from the days of Hamilton on the one hand, with his bank report, and Jefferson, on the other, with his Kentucky Resolutions; and from the time when Chancellor Kent in 1826 published his Commentaries, and was the first man of note to deny that a state had the right to withdraw from the Union. It is not what Whittier wrote about Webster that has dimmed his reputation; it is that Webster, like Lincoln after him, had a divided mind, and that he clothed logical solecisms and false historical interpretations in sonorous rhetoric which became harsh when thoroughly digested. When debating with the watchful and remorseless Calhoun, Webster dared to deny the states sovereignty, because, he exclaimed, whoever heard of a sovereignty being suable as the states were made in the Constitution. How easy for Calhoun to reply that from time immemorial states were suable when they submitted themselves to be sued. What is an arbitration between France and England but a submission on the part of both to be sued, and to abide by the adjudication? In like manner Webster could spend his logic-chopping powers to the demonstration that the Constitution was not a compact; and yet at another time he spoke with such perspicacity as this: "Where sovereign communities are parties, there is no essential difference between a compact, a confederation and a league. They all equally rest on the plighted faith of the sovereign party. A league or confederacy, is but a subsisting or continuing treaty. If in the opinion of either party it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfill its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual." Reserved sovereignty includes the power to break the league whether the reason be good or bad, or none. The other party to the league can do nothing about it except to kill men for breaking it.
All confederated republics are both federal and national: federal with each other and national with the rest of the world. The Constitution was framed under the inspiration of Montesquieu more than any other authority. He had written of a government formed of several small republics bound together in such a way as to be a nation to the world, while each retained its own nationality and sovereignty. Montesquieu also treated of the division of powers in a government between the executive, the legislative and the judicial, each independent of the other. What the framers of the Constitution did was to federate the republics of the states so that the motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum, would fittingly describe what was done; and then to divide the powers of the artificial nation into legislative, executive and judicial, making the general government their joint agent for the exercise of those powers.
A passing glance may be given to the charges flung by Southern statesmen against the North, that the North had on occasion advocated secession, and even taken steps toward it. There was Massachusetts, which in 1803 was reported to have resolved that the annexation of Louisiana was unconstitutional, and, as it created a new confederation, Massachusetts, as a party to the old compact, was absolved from adhering to the latter. There was the action of Massachusetts, whose legislature in 1844-45 resolved that the annexation of Texas would have no binding effect upon Massachusetts -another case of nullification. There was the Hartford convention of 1814, which resolved in the very language of the Kentucky resolutions of Jefferson, that a state, both in duty and in right, might interpose to protect its sovereignty, and that "states which have no common umpire must be their own judges, and execute their own decisions." Nathan Dane signed his name to this resolution, he who had drawn the Ordinance of 1787, for the government of the Northwest Territory.
If this were a work devoted only to this subject more time might be spent on the Resolutions of the Senate of December 28, 1837, the first of which was, that, "in the adoption of the Constitution, the states adopting the same acted, severally, as free, independent and sovereign states," which passed that body by a vote of 32 to 13, with 18 states voting for it and 6 against it. This was high legislative interpretation of the Constitution and by juridical rules must be respected. This review may end with the words of Montesquieu: "Several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each, individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic; their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it in virtue of voluntary engagements."
The recognition of these principles would have saved tens of thousands of lives and great treasure. That is desirable, if there be not something more desirable, like the triumph of God's truth as divined by fanatics and abetted by money and power. It was among the workable solutions of the strife between the North and the South for Lincoln to have accepted the Crittenden Compromise. He might have recognized the independence of the seceding states, as George III recognized the independence of the original thirteen states. If the South had won the war, he would have been compelled to have done so. What then would have become of his doctrine that "in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the union of these states is perpetual"?
SOURCE: Edgar Lee Masters, Lincoln: The Man, Copr 1931, Reprint 1997, pp. 341-4.
In other words, you are celebrating the works of an avowed communist. Why am I not surprised.