Sticking up for Robert E. Lee

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Many nations around the globe know nothing but civil war – where year after year one faction is conquered or deposed by another, or a minority takes up arms against the majority, or a least the present ruling party, and this guerilla warfare often goes on for years.

We see or hear of these far away places like Africa or the Middle East, and just shake our heads at how backward and uncivilized they are.

Of course we don’t have any of those petty third world type problems here in the U.S. We wouldn’t have time for such frivolous things anyway. We’re too busy tackling the important issues of the day – like trying to completely erase our history by tearing down statues and plaques that supposedly make a very select few squeamish.

We in America will not tolerate any hurt feelings. Even if those feelings are illogical and based entirely on lies and half-truths regarding these inanimate antagonists.

The inanimate objects causing the greatest consternation are the many statues of that Confederate fiend, General Robert E. Lee. He is considered a blight on America for he was willing to not just take up arms, but lead an entire army, to defend the right to own slaves, not realizing how bad it will make pampered Americans feel over 150 years later. read more

Podcast – Thoughts of Memorial Day

Memorial Day is tomorrow. So rather than my usual political monologue, I thought I would rather share with you some facts and remembrances of past Memorial Day and Decoration Day events.

Happy Memorial Day!

Think of the fallen – Pray for those in harms way – Thank veterans and Active Duty personnel.

read more

Memorial Day Remembrance

Memorial Day is a very important time to show solemn respect to the millions of Americans who have died in wars across the world – and pay special honor to their families who sacrificed so much – so we may live in freedom. Because of them, we enjoy the blessings of liberty, protected from the ruthless tyrants who still roam the earth, desperately seeking to enslave humanity.

read more

I Saw Lincoln at the Theatre

A rare TV appearance of the last surviving person to witness the assassination of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination has turned up on YouTube.

The video is from a February 1956 episode of the TV game show I’ve Got a Secret.

The show involved a notable person with a celebrity panel whose job it was to guess the secret behind what made the guest so famous.

The video begins with host Garry Moore walking backstage to help an elderly man make his entrance.

The man, who has a bandage on his head,  introduces himself: ‘Samuel J. Seymour. I’m from Maryland.’

Moore explains that the man had fallen down some stairs in his hotel room and gave himself a black eye.

‘We urged him not to come onto the show tonight as a matter of fact. We finally got in touch with his doctor, and the doctor said it was up to Mr Seymour. Mr  Seymour said he wouldn’t miss it, so here he is,’ Moore says to  applause.

The secret flashes on the screen: ‘I saw John  Wilkes Booth shoot Abraham Lincoln (April 14, 1865).’

Mr Seymour appeared on the show about two years after his story was written in the pages of the Milwaukee Sentinel, in which he recounted the day Lincoln was assassinated.

Moore, speaking for Mr Seymour, said that the  man, who was five years old at the time, did not realize Lincoln had been shot,  only that he saw a man jump from the balcony.

That man, of course, was John Wilkes Booth,  the assassin.

‘I was scared to death,’ Mr Seymour  says.

Although the celebrity panel was able to  guess the secret, Mr Seymour was given the $80 prize and a can of Prince Albert  pipe tobacco for appearing on the show.

Mr Seymour died on April 12, 1956, about two  months after appearing on ‘I’ve Got a Secret.’

Attribution: Mail Online

Divine Providence

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Have you ever had the feeling you were chosen by a higher power and driven to do something exceptional? Yeah, me neither.

That’s because it’s so uncommon. There is a name for this phenomenon. It’s called Divine Providence.

Divine Providence is not often revealed to mankind, but it does happen. There are times in our history when it seems God has reached down from the heavens and plucked a man (or men) from the masses and guided him to do what must be done in that moment in history.

I don’t believe George Washington just happened. He was chosen and guided through Divine Providence. No one else could have been that guy. As great a collection of minds as they were, not Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, etc. could have been the inspiration that was Washington. He was chosen because he was the one man that could take on the task and see it through.

The King of England, George III, the Mad King, begat George Washington. The King was a bad guy and the colonies needed a polar opposite to lead them out of bondage, as it were.

Washington was not perfect, but he was a good and just man. He was, by no coincidence, exactly what America needed at the time.

Abraham Lincoln was also that man this country needed at that exact time in our history.

James Buchanan, Lincoln’s presidential predecessor was arguably pro-slavery, at least so far as the American territories were concerned. He had many pro-slavery advocates in his cabinet.

Once more, Buchanan begat Lincoln. Many would argue Lincoln was not an anti-slavery advocate to start, but no one could make that claim, by the time he ran for reelection against George McClellan, who wished to end the war and compromise with the south allowing slavery to continue.

I contend that Lincoln was guided on the path of good and no other, at that time in history, could have accomplished the task of both preserving the Union and emancipation.

Carter begat Reagan. In the late 1970’s this country was floundering and leaderless. Carter was a weak administrator at best and America craved, no needed, a strong leader. Reagan was that man. He was a good man with strong ideals and not afraid to call out evil. He reminded us how great America was and how it could be again, that we were the last best hope of mankind and a beacon of freedom for others to emulate.

He was the man, guided by Divine Providence , to restore and renew America. No other of his time could have been that man.

And so do we stand at this moment in history with a clear choice, and Mitt Romney is the clear choice.

As many know, Romney was not my guy, as it were. He is not the “true conservative” we all think we need and as we would define a conservative.

What Mitt is, is a good man. I have concluded that a conservative policy wonk is not now what America needs, although, as an added bonus, we will get one in the V.P., Paul Ryan.

In every crucial moment in our history, a phoenix has risen from the ashes to pull us back from our path to self destruction and place us back on the path to good.

It’s as if God gives us a little rope and then pulls us back when we stray too far.

I’m no clairvoyant, but I think we might be living in an historic time. We may be witness to another Divine Providential event.

Evil gives way to good and Barack Obama and his administration of radicals are evil, maybe the worst in our history. They may not be “the Devil” evil, but evil in that they wish to shake the foundation of liberty and freedom established by our founders until it topples, in order to rebuild it in their own warped image of the “perfect” society.

It’s not evil to wish to change things, if done in the light, where all can see, understand and freely choose. The evil is in the covert way they’ve chosen to operate.

The mark of a good man is how good he is when no one is looking. Few people are as good as Romney when no one is looking.

We, at this moment in history, need a good and moral man. I believe, through Divine Providence, Mitt Romney has been chosen to be our standard bearer of good.

Do I wish that Mitt was not only good but more conservative? Yep, but I’ve come to gladly accept that he is not both. He is honest, moral and very hard working.

That’s what we need at this moment in history and we get to witness the history and hopefully be a part of it.

The Blame Game

 From: Tim Brown at FrontPorch Politics

According to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who appeared on Fox News’ ‘Hannity’ on Friday, Barack Obama drafted a memo to protect himself from blame if the mission to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden would have failed. This would have allowed Obama to then place the blame of the failure of the mission on General William H. McRaven.

Mukasey wrote about this in the Wall Street Journal this week.

He told Sean Hannity,

“That was a highly lawyered memo (designed to protect the president politically)… I think there’s going to be more that’s going to be tumbling out about that escapade but so far that memo is enough.

Michael Mukasey then went on to contrast Barack Obama’s “blame game” with Abraham Lincoln and Dwight Eisenhower. In doing so he contrasted the way Barack Obama calculates to take credit for himself and place blame on others.

 
 

When it came to Lincoln and the failures attributed to General George McClellan and Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, Lincoln took the blame stating, “I stand here, as justice requires me to do, to take upon myself what has been charged upon the Secretary of War.”

Dwight Eisenhower was very similar. In the famous statement penned before the Normandy invasion, in anticipation of failure, Eisenhower wrote, “My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

Once the invasion had been successful, Eisenhower didn’t take credit, but rather gave credit where it was due. “One week ago this morning there was established through your coordinated efforts our first foothold in northwestern Europe. High as was my preinvasion confidence in your courage, skill and effectiveness . . . your accomplishments . . . have exceeded my brightest hopes. I truly congratulate you upon a brilliantly successful beginning. . . . Liberty loving people everywhere would today like to join me in saying to you, ‘I am proud of you.”

Look how far we have come from the days when a man took responsibility for his decisions instead of blaming others.

Constitution 101 (8)

Lesson 8: “Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution”

Study Guide

Overview:

Abraham Lincoln’s fidelity to the Declaration of Independence is equally a fidelity to the Constitution. The Constitution takes its moral life from the principles of liberty and equality, and was created to serve those principles. We are divided as a nation today, as in Lincoln’s time, because we have severed the connection between these two documents.

Lincoln’s “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union” contains the central theme of Lincoln’s life and work. Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve.

The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As the embodiment of the Declaration’s principles, the Constitution created a frame of government with a clear objective. The Constitution is not a collection of compromises, or an empty vessel whose meaning can be redefined to meet the needs of the time; it is the embodiment of an eternal, immutable truth.

Abraham Lincoln defended the Union and sought to defeat the Confederate insurrection because he held that the principles of the Declaration and Constitution were inviolable. In his speeches and in his statecraft, Lincoln wished to demonstrate that self-government is not doomed to either be so strong that it overwhelms the rights of the people or so weak that it is incapable of surviving.

Constitution 101 (7)

Lesson 7: “Crisis of Constitutional Government”

Study Guide

Overview:

At the heart of the American constitutional crisis of the mid-nineteenth century stood the moral, social, and political evil of slavery. At stake in this crisis was the future of republican self-government.

Abraham Lincoln saw the dilemma facing the nation as the “crisis of a house divided.” While the American Founders worked to put slavery, as Lincoln said, “on the course of ultimate extinction,” the institution had instead flourished in the first half of the nineteenth century. By the 1850s, efforts to expand slavery threatened to tear the nation apart.

Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas championed the idea that Americans living in the territories should choose whether or not slavery should be legal there. “Popular sovereignty” eventually became the law of the land with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

For Lincoln, “popular sovereignty” was an abandonment of moral principle. Man does not have a moral right to choose a moral wrong. Self-government cannot mean ruling other human beings without their consent. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, although disguised in the language of liberty and self-government, was in fact at odds with the core principles of the American regime.

The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision marked a further departure from the principles of the American Founding. Writing for the majority in 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared that the Founders never intended for the principles of natural right enunciated in the Declaration to apply to blacks—whether enslaved or emancipated. Furthermore, Congress had no right to ban slavery in the territories. For Lincoln and the opponents of slavery, this decision was not only constitutionally and historically wrong, but it also further enabled the legal expansion of slavery nationwide.

Lincoln and Douglas debated both popular sovereignty and the Dred Scott decision in their Illinois Senate race of 1858. Douglas maintained that self-government and slavery were compatible and mutually beneficial in certain climates, and it was up to the majority of citizens to determine whether or not the conditions prevailing in their territory or state made slavery useful. Lincoln countered that republicanism and slavery could never exist in harmony, and that self-government could never be compatible with the denial of consent. America, he held, could not long exist half slave and half free; it must become one or the other.