[Peace-discuss] the stinkin' lincoln legacy

[E. Wayne Johnson]

These quotes seem to come unstuck in time.  In time for what, I am not 
sure, but lucky for us, perhaps.

"/It is time that Americans learn the truth about the real reasons 
behind our wars/..."  This quote is John Denson, 10 Jan 2006.

"/The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic 
war./ In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because 
most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the 
incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that 
blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. 
He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still 
the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," 
says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to 
preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the 
hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral 
crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence 
becomes betrayal."  - MLK Jr, Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, 30 April 
1967

/In war, truth is the first casualty/.  ~ commonly attributed to 
Aeschylus  (525-456 BC)




On 5/21/2009 8:50 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> I'm sure it's nice that you "go along with Foner" (tho' you don't say 
> how), but
> what 1858 quotation are you referring to?
>
>
> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>
>> On May 21, 2009, at 7:56 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>
>>> The "tendency to blend blend different situations together" is 
>>> called history, as distinguished from chronicles. I actually meant 
>>> to speak up for
>>> the "weather man," who "blends" by comparison and contrast.
>>
>> Silly or not. Where some see similarities, others see important 
>> differences.
>> There is great arbitrariness in the interpretation of historical events,
>> nuances some are not capable of understanding.
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you could make distinctions among the items on my list and 
>>> tell us
>>> which are worth discussing -- and for which ones the discussion is
>>> "pointless"?  (And perhaps, how you made the distinctions...)
>>
>> I did, briefly. Yours is simply a rhetorical question.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Civil War -- or one highly inaccurate interpretation of it -- is 
>>> a powerful justificatory myth for US foreign policy.  Both Bush and 
>>> Obama
>>> have compared themselves to Lincoln, and they're hardly alone among US
>>> presidents. We have to be able to say how and why they're talking 
>>> nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we have to recognize nonsense, such as Bush and Obama comparing 
>> themselves (if they did) to Lincoln, and with respect to your 
>> interpretation
>> of the Civil War being a justification for later wars.
>>
>> Did you read Foner's article?
>>>
>>>
>>> The important passage Wayne quoted says accurately, "It is time that 
>>> Americans learn the truth about the real reasons behind our wars" -- 
>>> and
>>> that there are connections, even among "different situations." 
>>> Refusing to
>>> talk about it means the terrorists win. --CGE
>>
>> 1858 was the date of that quotation. I go along with Foner, who's no 
>> apologist for war.
>>
>> --mkb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>> You seem unable to make distinctions. I was alluding to the 
>>>> situation that Lincoln faced. Each example of yours entertains a 
>>>> different
>>>> discussion. Hiroshima- Nagasaki was a question of how to end the 
>>>> war, how
>>>> many lives to be saved. There are substantive arguments on that 
>>>> question.
>>>> Terrorism (Reagan) or not is another question quite different from
>>>> Lincoln's problems. The number of feasible, rational, actions open in
>>>> each case differs. The tendency to blend different situations together
>>>> makes for an intellectual mush, and the poetry is of no help. --mkb On
>>>> May 21, 2009, at 3:53 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, it's as pointless as discussing what FDR should have done in 
>>>>> 1933, Truman in 1945, Kennedy in 1962, Reagan in Iran-Contra, Bush 
>>>>> in 2003, or Obama last month.  Don't you see it's time to move on? 
>>>>> Or, as
>>>>> the poet puts it, Better stay away from those That carry around a 
>>>>> fire
>>>>> hose Keep a clean nose Watch the plain clothes     You don't need a
>>>>> weather man To know which way the wind blows... Morton K. Brussel
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I find all this discussion about what might have been rather silly.
>>>>>> No one knows what the future might have been, in the short or 
>>>>>> thelong
>>>>>>  run, if other actions/policies had been taken before or after 
>>>>>> Fort Sumter. It's what's called idle speculation, that leads to 
>>>>>> nowhere.
>>>>>> --mkb On May 21, 2009, at 3:07 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>> Options other than war were available to Lincoln, and he was aware
>>>>>>> of them. Advice came from the most distinguished American military
>>>>>>>  figure of the day, Gen. Winfield Scott (1786-1866). He served on
>>>>>>> active duty as a general longer than any other man in American
>>>>>>> history and may have been the ablest American commander of his
>>>>>>> time; he devised the Anaconda Plan that would be used to defeat the
>>>>>>> Confederacy. In a letter addressed to  Governor Seward (leading
>>>>>>> Republican and Lincoln's Secretary of State) -- and obviously meant
>>>>>>> for Lincoln's eyes -- on the day preceding Lincoln's inauguration
>>>>>>> (March 3, 1861), Scott suggested that the president had four
>>>>>>> possible courses of action: [1] adopt the Crittenden Compromise
>>>>>>> (which restored the Missouri Compromise line: slavery would be
>>>>>>> prohibited north of the 36° 30′ parallel and guaranteed south of
>>>>>>> it); [2] collect duties outside the ports of seceding States or
>>>>>>> blockade them; [3] conquer those States at the end of a long,
>>>>>>> expensive, and desolating war, and to no good purpose; or, [4] say
>>>>>>> to the seceded States, "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!" Scott
>>>>>>> clearly preferred the forth.  In retrospect, it probably would have
>>>>>>> been best. (For more on why that would have been the case, see 
>>>>>>> the recent book by William Marvel I mentioned the other day.) 
>>>>>>> --CGE John W. wrote:
>>>>>>>> ... I'm curious what you would have done  as President in 1861, 
>>>>>>>> Wayne. Simply let the South secede? 
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090521/bbda5bbe/attachment.htm