Remind me. Whose administration went after the Little Sisters of the Poor?

I watched the first debate last night between Pres. Trump and former-VP Biden. It was not edifying. There was a line, however, that said a lot to me, how on one side, the dem side, they just make things up. There is a transcript at the Daily Mail.

BIDEN: “It’s a little bit like how this guy and his friends look down on so many people. They look down their nose on people like Irish Catholics, like me, who grow up in Scranton.”

Ummm… whose administration went after the Little Sisters of the Poor?

Will I watch the next debates? Probably. It’s a manifestation of Road Kill Syndrome. As you are driving, done the way a bit you see a dark lump by the road. You know it is going to be pretty nasty, but when you get there you look anyway.

Please share this post!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in What are they REALLY saying? and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Remind me. Whose administration went after the Little Sisters of the Poor?

  1. teomatteo says:

    Biden: …They look down their nose on people like Irish Catholics, like me, who grow up in Scranton.”
    And you dont look down at irish children in the womb who give no protection to?

  2. Fr. Kelly says:

    I tuned into the debate for the first hour last night, but was shocked to see the president had been set up for crossfire between the so-called moderator, Chris Wallace and his named opponent, Biden.
    Wallace was so persistent at attacking President Trump at every opportunity that Biden got away with what amounted to a series of ad hominem attacks. “He’s a liar.” ” He’s the worst president.” “…that clown.” “He doesn’t care about the little guy.” and outright fabrications like “He has no plan.” “He wants 20,000 (or was it 20,000,000) women to lose their health care. “Kelly Anne Conway said that he wants the riots to go on for his political advantage.” ” He wants more people to get sick and die.” He is personally responsible for all who have died from covid” and many more.
    In a way, I expect this sort of thing from Biden, though he hit a new low last night. What shocked me was the role Chris Wallace played in attacking President Trump, defending Biden, and preventing the president, to the extent he could from responding to Biden’s more despicable lies and personal attacks.
    I don’t know whether I should be shocked at this, but I guess I expected a moderator to … well … moderate the debate rather than throw himself so completely into one side of it.

    Two items in evidence of Wallace crossing the line:
    1 It was Wallace, not Biden who brought up the New York Times hit piece on President Trump’s tax returns from 2016 and 2017. It was Wallace, not Biden, who insinuated that the taxes paid on his federal income tax form are the only taxes that he paid in those years. (To explain the truth of this, the president would have had to give a seminar on the federal tax code, which would have taken him completely out of the debate. What’s more, both Biden and Wallace are aware of and, at their income level, I am sure take advantage of the same tax code that Trump’s tax attorney did as well)
    This would have been a clever debating ploy — called “poisoning the well” if Biden had employed it, but he didn’t have to. It was Chris Wallace the so-called moderator who used it.

    2 When president Trump was pressing home the point of the ANTIFA and BLM driven riots in Portland, (which Biden continued to refer to as “peaceful protests”) in which an innocent Trump supporter was shot down for being a Trump supporter, president Trump asked Biden whether as party leader he had spoken with the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon about sending in the national guard and ending the riots. Chris Wallace saved Biden by turning to the president and under the guise of fairness and asking him whether he would right now call for all “white supremacist” groups to stand down.
    The turn was so sudden and so vicious that even the president was a little taken aback by it. He pointed out that the vast majority of the violence is being perpetrated not by “white supremacists” but by Antifa and BLM thugs. This gave Biden the opportunity to claim unchallenged that Antifa does not exist as an organized entity.

    The timing of Wallace’s demand made the clear implication that 1 the violence in the riots is being perpetrated more by “white supremacists” than by anyone else, and that these “white supremacists” are being directed by president Trump so completely that an order from him to “stand down” would make them give up their arms and all violence would end.
    This would have been a despicable, yet effective ploy had it come from his opponent in the debate — but it didn’t. It came from the one claiming to be a neutral moderator.
    Chris Wallace was a disgrace and we should all be ashamed for him.

  3. hwriggles4 says:

    I did have the debate on television, and while I felt there was too much “he said, she said banter” going on (both sides), here are a few takeaways:

    1. Biden hinted he was not on board with The Green Deal , starting with “my plan…”

    2. Over 100 federal judge vacancies were left open on November 9, 2016. Elections have consequences.

    3. When the economy was discussed, I wanted Trump to say something like “look at your investment statements.”

    4. Biden tried to discuss foreign policy issues (i.e.Putin) . Forgive my ignorance, I don’t recall Biden making several overseas trips as Vice President, but I do remember John Kerry making them as Secretary of State.

    5. Viewers unfamiliar with Biden’s family could easily misinterpret the military service of Beau Biden with the Army National Guard versus the Navy Reserve service by Hunter Biden. (For the record Hunter got in the USNR as a PAO via Direct Commission – my opinion is had background checks been more thorough, he should not have received one). Last night when Biden went after Trump concerning the military, I felt viewers thought Trump was taking “jabs” regarding Beau, which was not the case.

    I did feel that both sides could have been more civil to each other – a few times Wallace tried to keep some ground rules in place. I, for one, felt the debate was not fruitful on both sides.

  4. ChesterFrank says:

    Yes, I did notice that he used “Irish Catholic” to get the “Working Class Catholic Vote” and that he picked an African American to gather the Black /Brown and Women’s vote and he said he would pick an African American Woman for the Supreme Court, which would strengthen his African American and Women’s voting base. The Chicken Noodle Network also had an article mentioning his use of the Islamic word “inshallah” during the debate, which I presume was to gain favorability with the Islamic voter. I don’t know what word describes a person that Uses a person race, religion, or sex to gain votes. No, I did not forget his administrations treatment of the Little Sisters of the Poor. I have also noticed how his administration used USAID to coerce various Catholic charities to conform to his political parties social platform.

  5. ChesterFrank says:

    Yes, I did notice that he used “Irish Catholic” to get the “Working Class Catholic Vote” and that he picked an African American to gather the Black /Brown and Women’s vote and he said he would pick an African American Woman for the Supreme Court, which would strengthen his African American and Women’s voting base. The Chicken Noodle Network also had an article mentioning his use of the Islamic word “inshallah” during the debate, which I presume was to gain favorability with the Islamic voter. I don’t know what word describes a person that Uses a person race, religion, or sex to gain votes. No, I did not forget his administrations treatment of the Little Sisters of the Poor. I have also noticed how his administration used USAID to coerce various Catholic charities to conform to his political parties social platform.

  6. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Yup, I’m sure that someone descended from Hebrides Gaelic-speakers is racist against the Irish.

    Also, Trump on his most Protestant and bad-Christian day is more Catholic than Biden.

  7. Fr. Kelly says: When president Trump was pressing home the point of the ANTIFA and BLM driven riots in Portland, (which Biden continued to refer to as “peaceful protests”) in which an innocent Trump supporter was shot down for being a Trump supporter, president Trump asked Biden whether as party leader he had spoken with the mayor of Portland and the governor of Oregon about sending in the national guard and ending the riots. Chris Wallace saved Biden by turning to the president and under the guise of fairness and asking him whether he would right now call for all “white supremacist” groups to stand down.

    And Biden’s response to this question about getting on the horn to the mayor and governor was, gosh golly gee, I do not currently hold public office; but before that, he had said he was the Democrat party. Le Parti Democrate c’est moi!

    I think my favorite line of Biden’s, though, was when he accused Trump, the most overtly Catholic-friendly president in our history, of being anti-Catholic. Did you notice that? He accused Trump of going after Irish Catholics “like me,” tossing it out there like a Molotov cocktail out the window of a moving vehicle and then beating a hasty retreat. (Though, I guess, if by “Irish Catholics like me” he means going after hypocritical CINOs who oppose everything the Church stands for, maybe he has a point.)

  8. WVC says:

    I was waiting for Kamala Harris to do a run in with the steel chair, only to have Mike Pence intercept her from off the top rope.

    Was Trump an immature bully? Of course he was. That’s who he is. At this point in time, who on earth in their right mind would expect him to be otherwise? However, Biden showed himself to be a confident, lucid, self-serving weasel, dealing in nothing but lies and generalities and excuses. I’d rather have a bully giving the weasel a hard time than a sycophant like Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush being “civil” and paying such a dastardly stooge “respect.”

  9. Leo says:

    Trump also just made things up. Two examples:
    1. That he paid “millions” in federal income tax.
    2. That the Portland Sheriff supports him.
    (See https://twitter.com/SheriffReese/status/1311125507757416449)

    I’m not sure I’ve ever seen any presidential “debate” in which one person interrupted another person so many times. I haven’t counted all of them, but initial reports say Trump broke his previous record of 51 interruptions per debate (in 2016) with a surprising total of 128 interruptions last night. Even if that number’s inflated — counting what I’d call “near interruptions” — even so, the president was gratuitously rude (even by Trump standards). I hope in the next debate, the moderator mutes the mic of the person not speaking, while giving equal time to each.

    Or even better: resume the Lincoln-Douglas format. One person speaks for an hour, the second for an hour and a half, and then the first has 30 minutes for rebuttal. At the second debate, they switch who starts. Or if that’s too long for our short attention spans, we can do 30-45-15 split of uninterrupted speeches. Q&A — as last night demonstrated — is mostly a waste of time.

  10. NOCatholic says:

    As Father Z says, in an understatement worthy of our friends across the pond, “It was not edifying.”

    A couple of random thoughts:

    Almost the only civil exchange in the night, was when Wallace asked about Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to SCOTUS (an outstanding choice, of course). Biden made the usual statement about “letting the people decide” to which Trump responded “they already decided” and then schooled Biden about term lengths. Trump was uncharacteristically calm and serious in his response, something we saw all too little of from either candidate.

    As WVC points out, both candidates revealed their character last night. When we vote for a President (or any other office) we are voting for people with character for good or bad, not just their stated positions on important issues. Something to keep in mind. I know others see it differently, but for me, Trump’s character as President no matter his positions is a deal breaker (and no, that doesn’t mean I’m voting for Biden — my deal breakers for him are the same as anyone else’s here).

  11. Semper Gumby says:

    Fr. Kelly: Good points. Joe “You Ain’t Black” Biden and Chris “Critical Race Theory is Good Stuff” Wallace were a tag-team against the President. During their deflection away from actual terrorists and thugs and onto the Proud Boys, the Dastardly Duo conveniently did not mention, say, Enrique Tarrio.

    ChesterFrank: Good points. Joe “Clap You Stupid Bas*****” Biden’s use of “Inshallah” is telling. Perhaps Biden is looking to pick up the Intifada vote.

    Anita Moore, O.P. (lay): Good points. Bunker Biden, who claims to be shocked, shocked that the Party of Death is rioting, torching, looting, and murdering in the streets, has now emerged to don the rank of Feldmarschall. No doubt during the second debate Bunker Biden will gesticulate wildly as he delivers a spittle-flecked discourse on the Fuhrerprinzip.

  12. tho says:

    If Biden is an example of Irish Catholics, heaven help us. Could you imagine Archbishop Sheen’s reply to a remark like that. In response to Biden representing Irish Catholics, please get me an eraser to eliminate my last name.

  13. WVC says:

    @NOCatholic – please do not include me in your never-ending attempts to create a false equivalence between Trump and Biden. You can continue on your insistence that we are morally bound to only vote for goody-two-shoe type candidates regardless of any other circumstances or compelling arguments to the contrary, but you can be civil enough to not portray me as in any way sympathetic with your position.

  14. Fr. Kelly says:

    I have to add that I don’t agree that president Trump acted immature last night. From the very start Chris Wallace made it clear that he was on the attack against the president.

    Faced with that Tag team, he had to go on the offensive or be steamrolled.

    Wallace tried to hold him but not Biden to the time limits agreed to ahead of time.
    But they had also agreed that Wallace would be a moderator, not a debater.

    I am proud to say that I plan to vote for President Trump for reelection. And not just as a lesser of two evils.

  15. Semper Gumby says:

    Chris Wallace to Pres. Trump (h/t Matt Walsh):

    “Sir do you deny that you’re a Nazi?” “Well sure, I —“ “Sir people say you’re a Nazi sir. Why aren’t you denying it?” “I am, but —“ “Sir does this non-denial mean that you are both a Nazi and a cannibal? Why do you eat people sir? America must know!”

  16. NOCatholic says:

    @WVC: I doubt anyone thought you endorsed everything I said, but I will keep that in mind in the future so there’s no misunderstanding. However, you did call Trump a “bully” and Biden a “weasel,” both of which are unflattering character descriptions. Also, you misunderstand my criticism of Trump, which goes way beyond not being a “goody two-shoes”.

    Overall, Trump’s “bullying” was a tactical mistake. Think about it. When your debate opponent is believed to have mental acuity issues, why not let him speak, and prove it before the whole country? Trump did the exact opposite, constantly interrupting Biden and letting him off the hook. If Wallace helped out Biden, that paled in comparison. In any case, the debate was a draw, which was all Biden needed.

  17. WVC says:

    @Fr. Kelly – To clarify my remark, I think Trump is far better than we deserve, and I think he’s probably the best President in my lifetime (starting with Jimmy Carter). I’m certainly not supporting him as any sort of “lesser of two evils.”

  18. WVC says:

    @NOCatholic – I have no problem with bullies when they bully those on the side of evil. I’m sure Muslims thought Godfrey and Tancred were bullies. And you’ve made clear y0ur opinion of Trump as some sort of colossal evil that is just as bad as those who support the slaughter of innocent babies, those who support every type of sexual perversion, those who want transgender bathrooms in elementary schools, those who hate everything to do with the Christian Church, those who support rioting and looting and murdering and the defunding of the police, those who hate America and her history and her people, those who support political corruption that weaponizes the intelligence agencies against political opponents and leverages foreign bribes to enrich their children, those who support environmental radicals that want to destroy economies and impoverish humans in pursuit of Gaia, those who want to turn America into a Socialist country, those who vilify the white race and all associated with it as the greatest villains in all of human history, and those who would gleefully persecute everyone, including nuns, whose religious conscience prevents them from embracing every jot and tittle of the Progressive Agenda.

    You haven’t actually given any logical reasons as to why you hold such an absurd opinion (aside from citing second or third hand gossip from folks you do not know and whom others have either disparaged or disagreed with), but you’ve been very vocal about trying to shove this completely unreasonable opinion into any comment thread that dares mention the election.

    So I can’t really say that I’m all that interested in your opinion on how the debate went.

  19. grateful says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0sybeyYh9I
    check the 10 minute mark
    Victor Davis Hanson did not like the format

  20. JonPatrick says:

    The “Irish Catholics like me” remark is aimed at all those mostly Catholics that still think of the Democratic Party as the party of the working man, the party of FDR and JFK. They do not realize that it is now the party of AOC and Bernie Sanders in spite of this parody of a working class Irish American from Scranton as its figurehead. One thing I thought interesting is how Biden appeared to back away from the Green New Deal as a way to try to move to the center and perhaps pick up undecided voters. Of course he runs the risk of alienating the left wing which is now the party’s base. In an election that will probably be decided by whose base turns out the most that may prove to be a blunder.

  21. Fr. Kelly says:

    The bully on Tuesday night was not President Trump. It was Chris Wallace, who used his position as moderator for personal attacks on the president.

  22. Fulco One Eye says:

    Father Kelly wins the prize on this thread!!

    How NOCatholic can come to the conclusion to vote for Joe and his shrew is beyond rational thought in light of Trump’s record in less than 4 years and Joe’s utter lack of a record in 47. Even aside from that, don’t you care the least about Joe’s plans to accelerate the murder of the innocents? Maybe the moniker you chose is appropriate but has nothing to do with the liturgy.

  23. NOCatholic says:

    Anyone reading this thread would see where I said I’m not voting for Joe Biden.

    As for what others have said, if they saw a debate where Mike Wallace ganged up with Donald Trump on Joe Biden, that is not at all the debate I saw. I don’t know where that debate was. I saw a debate where the President blatantly ignored the agreed-upon debate rules and talked over the moderator as well as his opponent.

    Nor is noble Donald Trump, the “best President in my lifetime” as someone said, the Donald Trump I see and which others have reported on. Rather, that man is the erratic, undisciplined man who openly worries about his TV ratings rather than the well-being of the American people, who courts foreign leaders to help his domestic political campaign, who is openly self-centered rather than diligently carrying out his official responsibilities.

    Entrusting such a man with the powers of the Presidency even to do good, is an awful risk, the lesser of two evils at best.

    I am glad Trump delivered a third Supreme Court nomination, hopefully decisive in curtailing legal abortion. I’m thankful for God’s providence that things are not worse than they are. But to be clear, I’m not voting for either one. But I am praying for our country. I am still praying for God’s providence that we survive whoever wins in November.

  24. WVC says:

    @NOCatholic
    “as someone said” – are you afraid to attribute my own words to me? Again, be civil enough to treat me like a human being and not some unspeakable cretin. I never called him noble, either. Yet he’s still far and away much better than we deserve.

    You do realize that Joe Biden broke the rules first? He clearly interrupted Trump before Trump interrupted him. Go rewatch the debate if you doubt this fact. Biden was also allowed to speak longer than Trump (people have timed it, it’s not hard to find – his first 2 minute segment went to 2 and a half minutes – I guess the moderator’s stop watch was stuck). He also called Trump a liar, a clown, and told him to “shut up, man.” During the “open discussion” segments, where there was supposed to be “back and forth” – the moderator would stop Trump by saying, “Mr. President, it’s open discussion” – how that makes any sense is beyond me. Trump actually never called Joe Biden a name or told Joe to shut up. So who broke the rules, exactly?

    You have a personal bias against Trump because you do not like him. Everything you see is colored by that bias. You continue to pretend that Trump has not ALREADY BEEN THE PRESIDENT for 3 and a half years. Courting foreign leaders for domestic political gains? Not only has that been what EVERY president has done for decades, but Trump has been nominated for THREE Nobel Peace Prizes. His admin has brokered deals between Serbia and Kosovo and Israel and Bahrain and the UAE. His admin has brought a practical end to ISIS. Nobody is seriously talking about nuclear war with North Korea, which is all everybody was talking about at the end of Obama’s reign. Most important of all, he’s pushed back against Chinese global hegemony, something no other President had the courage to do and something you can be absolutely sure Biden will not do. And that push back has cost him, to some degree, easy points with the Chamber of Commerce shills here in the USA – so he’s actually pursued foreign policies that have been to the DETRIMENT of his domestic standing.

    You continue to seek validation for your personal bias and present no arguments to support your opinion. You basically just throw out your personal judgments about a man you never met, and then support that judgment by giving opinions from others whom you’ve also never met. This isn’t argument – it’s gossip. Yet you continue to push forward your opinion while discounting Trump’s actual record and accomplishments as President as well as all of the personal testimony in his favor (of which there is quite a lot from many different walks of life).

    Bottom line – you are creating a false equivalence between Biden, who openly supports all of the evil I’ve already mentioned in this comment thread, and Trump, who tries to support much that is good and has a record to show he will actively try to do good and avoid that which is evil BUT you personally don’t like him so that makes him just as bad as Biden.

    That dog does not hunt.

  25. Fulco One Eye says:

    When a person fails in his responsibility to stand by a just cause, in this case voting for President Trump, that person is an enabler of evil. This is particularly true when the stakes are so high and it’s done for such superficial reasons. Your rationalization simply doesn’t work NOCatholic.

  26. The Masked Chicken says:

    Fulton One Eye wrote:

    “ When a person fails in his responsibility to stand by a just cause, in this case voting for President Trump, that person is an enabler of evil.”

    Voting for Trump is not the just cause – voting pro-life is the just cause. It does not follow that one necessarily need vote for Trump for the vote to be a moral vote. There may be a pro-life third-party candidate that one may morally vote for. It may be a frustrated vote, in that it might draw votes away from Trump, but this is taking a very short-sighted view of history. If everyone maintained that idea – a third party vote always takes away a vote from the traditional parties – we would be perpetually locked in a binary, two-party scheme, something not mandated by the Constitution, I might add.

    It might take a number of people working and failing for years voting for a third-party candidate until there are enough people voting for one to create a way to break out of the either-or, liberal-conservative oscillations in societal politics (with the liberals slowly pushing society in a more liberal direction because it is easier to sin than restrain from sinning, in terms of morality, and, by-and-large, liberals are advancing a generally more sinful agenda than conservative) that have grown in amplitude more and more in recent years, but that does not mean the early third-party voters have, necessarily, voted in vain. It may simply mean that they are taking a longer view of history.

    At some point this extreme polarization becomes counter-productive. Yes, tensions are high on the pro-life issue, since it involves an intrinsic evil and, perhaps, at this point in history, Trump may have to be elected because there is no other viable way to serve the pro-life agenda, but Trump is not the Savior of either America nor the human race. He is a man who, for whatever reason, has adhered closely to the opinions of his Evangelical Christian base, including their anti-abortion stand (although, not precisely a consistent pro-life stand, since Evangelicals do not understand contraception, properly). That is to his credit. That makes him a pragmatic choice, but not an ideal choice. One can imagine a president who holds consistently Catholic moral views and has enough political savvy to get elected. That may happen, someday. Who knows.

    In terms of the short-game, voting for Trump, because of his policies, is a defensible moral position; voting for a third-party candidate, because of their character, is, also, a defensible moral position, even if it is likely to remove support for either of the traditional two party candidates. In terms of the long-game, a viable third party might help prevent a second Civil War.

    In any case, the problems in the U. S. at the moment are not political, they are moral. We will never have a country at peace as long a there is a hodgepodge of moral outlooks undergirding the secular political sphere. There will never be a political solution to the pro-life problem until the underlying moral morass has been removed. With slavery, even with a Civil War, the underlying moral oppositions were never fully removed, leading to Jim Crow laws a century later.

    Both Trump and Biden have very short-range, very secular views of history. I don’t look for either to solve the pro-life problem, although Trump can, at least, supply a tourniquet, keeping the country from bleeding out, for a while. The demographic shift will solve the pro-life issue, eventually, anyway (pro-aborts having fewer kids and all) and, perhaps it is Trumps role to keep the issue in controversy until demographics take over.

    As for other, more prudential political and economic issues, those are more amenable to a variety of opinions, but the more people get locked into one position because of party affiliations, the less opportunity there will be for out-of-the-box thinking, which this country sorely needs, right now.

    Both WVC and NOCatholic have viable arguments for voting for or away (I would not say against) Trump depending on what one views as the most important issues and the timescales on which they occur.

    The only little nit I have is when people say that President Trump is, “the most pro-life president in history.” Compared to whom? If Lincoln were transported to 2020, how might he deal with the issue or John Adams? The fact is that Trump is the most overtly pro-life president since Roe vs. Wade, which is not all of history. It is out of eight presidents. The subject did not exist before 1960, at the earliest, unless one wants to make a case that the Eugenics movement in the 1920’s was a pro-life issue, in which case, I might throw Wilson into the mix. This is what I mean by polarizing the language of politics. This sort of locked-in hyperbolic rhetoric is making it difficult for people to see alternatives and calmly reason about the facts. As much as Trump is on the side of the angels on the pro-life issue, he is not on the side of clarity in his use of rhetoric and neither are the people who takes sides with him or against him (including the media). That makes this election have a lot more blood in the operating field than it should.

    There is a measure in epidemiology called the dispersion factor, k, which measures the heterogeneity of a population – how spread out the change agents (or infectious people) are. A k 1 means everybody’s opinions or infections effect people about equally. The political dispersion in this country, right now is way below 1, so that individual people can have a overwhelming effect. The last time thing were this polarized was just before the Civil War. That’s not a happy thought.

    The Chicken

  27. WVC says:

    @The Chicken
    “we would be perpetually locked in a binary, two-party scheme” – where have you been for the past 7+ decades?

    Your argument would be cogent if we were back in the 1950s. I understand that the Cold War complicated things, but the time to try to derail the two-party (really now more of a uni-party) system was a long time ago. One cannot practice politics in a vacuum. Right now, with riots and looting widespread, the legal system fully weaponized thanks to political activated district attorneys all across the country, and the openly Marxist political party trying to ascend into power while showing complete disregard for every single rule and tradition (and law) that has governed this country – it’s not the most prudent time to try a third party experiment that won’t yield fruit for decades.

    Rather, the short term political game IS the long term political game right now. That is to say, if the “conservative” side (and I use that term loosely) doesn’t win right now, there will be no long term political game. With talk of stacking the Supreme Court and the Senate (i.e. statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.) coupled with mass Amnesty for millions upon millions of future Democrat voters, we can be reasonably sure that if the Democrats take the White House and possibly the Senate in this upcoming election there will never be another Republican President for what’s left of this country’s history. Any serious view of recent political history bears this out. Every time they gain complete power, they push their agenda as hard as possible, even if creates political backlash in the short term (i.e. ObamaCare).

    While the Pro-Life issue should be a significant consideration for every voter, focusing one’s world view on that one issue is suicidally myopic. Once the anti-Life party has total control of the government, consider the Pro-Life issue over. Forever.

    I agree the problems we face are moral, not political. I certainly don’t think there’s much if anything Trump or anyone else in politics can do to fix our problems. That’s a job for us and for the bishops and priests who should be our moral guides, not our fund raising social workers. That being said, there are many things that malevolent politicians can do to make things worse. Much worse. Irreversibly worse. We’re talking “outlawing homeschooling” and “ban on non-gender inclusive public religious celebrations” type of worse.

    Regarding the American Civil War, based on this and other comments you’ve made, your knowledge of this piece of history is slightly incomplete. The War was not any kind of moral crusade but much more heavily influence by political and economic factors. And what happened to the South after the War, especially with regard to Reconstruction, has a lot to do with how the culture and laws there developed (e.g. Jim Crow). However, this is likely not the time and certainly not the place to get into a lengthy discussion about American History. I just balk at even the insinuation that Lincoln, the man responsible for over 600,000 unnecessary American deaths, could be considered a “Pro-Life” champion.

  28. The Masked Chicken says:

    Well, Trump will not be president for more than one more term, unless something drastic happens. What then? Keep voting Republican forever to keep the liberal hounds at bay? Then, we are, effectively, down to a one-party system (and, of course, that’s alright as long as it’s “our” party, eh). There is more than one way to be a conservative and still be pro-life. This is only an inflection point in history because of the intense polarization of politics that has emerged in the last 20 or so years, in part, due to social media and its isolating, polarizing tendencies, and due to the slow disintegration of a shared civic (if not moral) code. You see this most easily in how children behave towards adults, especially their parents. There is a famous YouTube video from 2012 of a father shooting his daughter’s laptop for posting a curse word-filled rant on Facebook. I won’t post the link, because it is a bit over-the-top and, probably, the father could have lost his daughter for pulling that stunt (the father was in an open field with no one else around when he shot the laptop, but CPS would not look kindly on it), but it does illustrate the problems in a graphic way.

    Even during the race riots and the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, things were not this volatile. Partially, this is because multimedia persuasion tactics were, still, in their infancy. We are much more sophisticated, today. Knowledge is instant and analysis is quick. This creates a climate of instant reactions that are quickly locked into place.

    I cannot agree that a vote for Trump is a vote for an actual enduring solution to the many problems facing society, today. It is, at best, a holding pattern. The real flaw is in the structure of the decision-making process at the federal level. Back before Roe vs. Wade, most states had laws against abortions. That a Supreme Court could overturn those laws so cavalierly against the majority will of the people on an idiotic argument of “right to privacy,” which is inconsistent with a proper view of marriage as a public institution, shows that the system can fail and when it does it taints society for generations. The checks against judicial activism are weak. Stacking a court, one way or the other, over the long run, will not change this, because, short of a dictatorship (liberal or conservative), the court will oscillate back-and-forth from liberal to conservative, over the long time. Someone won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that in a pure democracy, this oscillation must occur. We live in a republic, but the effect can, still, be observed to some extent. Just look at the history of the Republic – it oscillates, liberal to conservative every so often. Over the long haul, it has slid more liberal than conservative because of the defects in liberalism – it is a power-grab, after all, but, nevertheless, the oscillation is real. This will continue until the driving forces are removed or the structure of the system is changed.

    My desire for a third party comes from something in psychology called the Ashcroft Conformity Experiment:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

    The presence of a dissenting party can free people to consider other alternatives. We desperately need this, right now.

    The Chicken

  29. WVC says:

    @The Chicken

    You’re putting words in my mouth. I never suggested Trump was an enduring solution. My argument has been his first term bought us 4 more years of breathing room. His second term brings 4 more years of breathing room. His not winning this election means complete suffocation right now. I don’t think it’s difficult to see why 4 years of continuing to breath is better than suffocation.

    You continue to deal in abstracts and theories. I continue to worry about the very real children of whom I am responsible. I don’t have the luxury of waiting a few decades for the political landscape to correct itself (which assumes a lot). I’m trying to raise them in a day, age, and country where CPS could yank them from me for practically any anonymous slander against me, and where I have to homeschool them to protect them from anti-Christian propaganda. This isn’t theoretical – it’s real, and I’ve got 7 souls I’m accountable for, not counting my own. I’m already looking at having to move from my home state because, if the State government stays Democrat another term I’m not convinced homeschooling won’t be on the chopping block.

    Much of the theory you quote seems flawed at first glance. I can point to plenty of examples where the oscillations didn’t occur, or where the oscillations occurred but always moved the overall scale in one direction (towards extreme Liberalism). Even in this country it’s evident that the conservative oscillations never recover even half as much ground as the liberal oscillations. And once an actual revolution occurs, all bets are off. Our current political landscape looks a lot more like 1936 Spain or 1917 Russia right now, not some kind of run-of-the-mill political oscillation.

    Personally, I’d love a third party (or another 5 or 6 political parties, for that matter). I hate the Republican Party almost as much as I hate the Democrat Party. Right now, though, third party “let’s pretend” is nothing more than a waste of time. It will have nothing but a potentially negative impact on the current crisis looming in November. It will have practically no impact on the following election, barring some sort of unforeseeable political cataclysm. It’s fiddling while the republic burns.

    What can Trump do in 4 more years? Who knows? I can throw plenty of thoughts or ideas out, but they don’t really matter. What matters is the fact that a Biden/Harris administration will be devastating and potentially fatal to the country. Mass Amnesty alone would probably cement Democratic rule for the next century (it would potentially flip Texas Blue as well as cement several Purple states firmly Blue). I use to ponder about those moments in the Old Testament where God would give the Israelites a choice between Life and Death, and as a kid I would wonder who would be dumb enough to choose Death? Well, here we are.

    Regarding Roe V. Wade and States Rights over Federal overreach . . . that whole battle was lost more than 150 years ago. I can recommend some good books on the Civil War for reference.

  30. WVC says:

    @The Chicken

    Now that I think about, though, perhaps we can work a third party after all. How about you and me team up to start the Anti-Mask Party! Freedom for Your Face can be our political slogan!
    ;-)

  31. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC: Shots were fired on the merchant ship “Star of the West” January 9, 1861 en route to resupply the Federal garrison at Ft. Sumter SC. In April the Confederacy attacked the Fort. God bless Pres. Lincoln.

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/star-of-the-west-is-fired-upon

  32. Ann Malley says:

    @The Chicken

    “Well, Trump will not be president for more than one more term, unless something drastic happens. What then? Keep voting Republican forever to keep the liberal hounds at bay?”

    Have you considered an attempt to continue the reform of the Republican Party? Trump has managed to head that nebulous RINO community and shine cleansing light on some of her stellar failures. Ahem–Mitt Romney. The late, not-so-great John McCain comes to mind as well.

    So before we go all in with a third party spoiler, one that will undercut what small progress has been made, why not continue the Trump mode?

    Don’t think there aren’t statesmen out there who, if only for the momentum started, won’t attempt to pick up where Trump eventually leaves off.

  33. WVC says:

    @Semper Gumby
    Sorry – we’ll have to disagree on this one. Lincoln was provoking the South over Sumter. Even then, after all was said and done, zero casualties and the Federal soldiers were allowed to retire with colors, arms, and honor intact. Hardly just cause to go and get over 600,000 Americans slaughtered. There were many options on the table, but none of them were tried. Many states didn’t even secede until after Lincoln declared his unconstitutional draft. Lincoln also refused to meet with peace envoys from the Confederacy on multiple occasions.

    I’ll stop here, as this is neither a site nor comment thread dedicated to American history. However, there are plenty of resources available for folks to learn about the real Lincoln and not the American Tall Tale of “Honest” Abe.

    https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-problem-with-lincoln/

  34. WVC says:

    @Semper Gumby
    Darndest thing – for some reason I can no longer comment on this thread. I tried to respond about Lincoln, but the comment keeps disappearing. Perhaps I have angered the powers that be. I shall leave off, then.

    [This is a RARE instance when I will allow a comment on how I moderate this blog. If you – anyone – comment on moderation, I will DELETE your comments. Persistence results is suspension of the ability to comment. Check The Rules. I don’t have help in keeping up with things on this blog, so I apply tough measures in some aspects.]

  35. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC: Thanks for your reply, but it appears to be a non sequitur. Certainly we can disagree about Lincoln, but it’s not nothing that Pres. Buchanan was in office when those shots were fired at a merchant ship.

    Please consider letting go of the Myth of the Confederacy. Cheers.

  36. Imrahil says:

    The thing is I actually saw the debate; afterwards. I also saw the comments on the debate before the debate itself.

    I think I have an anti-Trump bias. I thought in 2016 that he was not sincere in his pro-life stand. I was, as it seems, proven wrong. There’s still the question whether it’s because the issue is dear to his heart or whether he must not lose a certain group of voters who are pro-life and a certain, probably bigger, group of voters who may not be distinctly pro-life but are certainly anti-establishment and anti-backing-down. Then, there’s also the fact that a group of his supporters belong to the pro-life movement and “il buono è anche contagioso”, good also is contagious, as I heard in a sermon (which happened to be in Italian). The issue may be dearer to his heart now than it used to be. So, that was a very positive surprise.

    I also feared that as far as worthy issues like “Christianity in public life”, “pro-life”, Conservatism are concerned, the association with the character of President Trump will do long-term damage. That fear I still have.

    I am quite clear, 0n principle, that there cannot ever be a moral obligation to vote for a less than perfect candidate. (This mess we’re in is not our fault.) There are always many things to prudentially consider. (Even why it’s better to have the utter breakdown of civilisation in 20 years rather than having it in 10 years and be done with it is not a tautology to me. I tend to think so but could not prove it.) Many things, that is, unless of course if one candidate were perfect. But President Trump is not that. (Thanks to the dear Masked Chicken’s comments.)

    But for all that, I saw a debate where President Trump argued calmly, decently and convincingly and, I think, won it.

    Everyone knows that “pre-agreed debate rules” are something like the Rules of the Game in soccer. They’re necessary as a guideline, but “the normal foul is not unfair”, as the famous saying, technically a paradox but quite accurate, goes. Of course you’ll add a decent amount of interrupting your opponent, when you think he’s quite wrong and you can get through with it. So would the opponent. Of course there’ll be moment where either side tries to shout the other one down; that’s the fun part of it. And the best part is if both opponents get in the flow of debating each other by mutual respectful interruption leaving the host desperately trying to get back into the game. (I agree that this debate did not reach that.) – Then, and here the comparison is not with soccer but with boxing, part of the job is to, within the rules, knock out your opponent. Here, I must say, President Trump when he effectfully said “did you just say smart” simply delivered the much better punch than did VP Biden’s repeated accusations about the liar and clown. (Not talking about the accuracy of either statement.)

    Trump has been much criticized for his “stand back, and stand by” comment, but I rather tend to think it’s a technically quite sophisticated solution to his problem “I do want to disassociate myself from rightist terrorists; but I don’t want to be seen giving in those who associate me with them by doing so, and most of all, I want to talk about something I think the more pressing problem”.

    Interesting, to me as an outsider, were the things that went uncontested and which I had not known, such as that Judge Barrett was in herself widely respected over party alignments, that the US economy was forcefully coming back, or that I would have guessed but are not quite stressed in German reporting, such as that President Trump is running a moderate-containment, not a no-containment, strategy against covid-19.

    There’s one thing I didn’t like President Trump did in the debate: one can’t deny it, he did weasle himself out of the question what Judge Barrett says to Roe vs. Wade.

    But yes, whatever else he did in his life or will still be doing, in this debate he fought decently, won it, and if I had a vote I would now vote for him (don’t tell anyone). I would not do so without a stomach-ache, though, as the saying goes; and partly because the long-term damage I fear will now come anyway.

  37. WVC says:

    @Semper Gumby – History isn’t a myth. Our country’s history is our story made up of our ancestors who were real human beings. Demonizing our history, including the Confederacy, is part of how we got into our current mess (hence the Wokesters going after Confederate Statues – Confederates whom we used to able to consider as honorable, like General Lee, now believed to be as bad if not worse than Nazis). And President Buchanan was smart enough to understand that shots fired on a vessel trying to resupply a military fort (where the vessel was not damaged, there were no casualties, and the complicated miscommunications leading up to that event were to blame) were no grounds for launching a devastating war against the Southern States.

    You cannot properly understand the current problems we’re facing, especially with regard to Federal Government overreach and the concept of local or States Rights, without understanding the reality (not the grade-school propaganda) about the very complicated US Civil War.

    Not sure how this topic came up. I blame The Chicken.

  38. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear WVC,

    You wrote:

    “Not sure how this topic came up. I blame The Chicken.”

    Guilty, as charged. I hang my beak in shame.

    I suppose our debate is like the ones I see between theoretical and experimental physicists. Both have their points to make.

    As for the Anti–mask Party, since I am, after all, a chicken, we could call out Party, AntBeaka. Has a certain ring to it, no?

    The Chicken.

  39. WVC says:

    @Imrahil – I feel like there are other folks doing a better job at creating long term damage to the Christian brand right now. In other news, did you hear there’s a new encyclical out?

  40. WVC says:

    @The Chicken
    How about Bawk-Bawk Lives Matter?

    . . . sorry everyone. I’ll see myself out.

  41. NOCatholic says:

    I was letting this go since I had said my piece, but I would be remiss not to acknowledge and thank 2 other posters:

    @The Masked Chicken for acknowledging that a pro-life third party vote is a defensible position to hold. (BTW, I’m not consciously trying to support a third party; a third party has a very steep hill to climb to ever be relevant in our two-party system.)

    @Imrahil for your comment that associating pro-life conservatism with the character of President Trump will do “long-term damage.” I fear pro-life Christian conservatism will pay a high price in the coming years for their unqualified support of Donald Trump. Time will tell if the price was worth it.

    And @WVC, regardless of what you thought, by using a quote that happened to be yours, I had no intention of being uncivil. If that was your view, please accept my apologies.

    Peace to you all.

  42. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear WVC,

    Well, what about Bawk-hawk Down?

    I am the Masked Chicken…. Yes, it’s The Masked Chicken, strange visitor from another henhouse, who came to Earth with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal chickens. The Masked Chicken, who can change the course of mighty arguments, bend half-truths in his bare feet, and who, disguised as Cluck Kent, mild-mannered commentor for a great metropolitan blog, fights a never-ending battle for truth, justice and…oh, look, bird seed…What was I saying?

    The Chicken

  43. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC: True, history (when written and taught reasonably accurately) is not a myth. Though, you raised the matter of “myth” in the context of protesting against how “…Lincoln, the man responsible for over 600,000 unnecessary American deaths, could be considered a “Pro-Life” champion.” One need not agree with your premise.

    Which brings us to your comment today: “Demonizing our history, including the Confederacy, is part of how we got into our current mess.” Please note, WVC, that a historical perspective differing from yours is not necessarily a myth or demonization.

    But there is room for agreement here. Today, the “Democrat” Party’s constant attacks on the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and many other notable Americans and American events is certainly part of their modus operandi.

    Though, we have to make distinctions. For example, with your mention of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. True, Lee had some fine qualities and served honorably in the U.S. Army, but, having decided to act as a Confederate general then the nature of the government and society he was fighting for should be taken into account. That said, any decision to remove his statue should be made by a deliberative process and not by a mob.

    An analogy is provided by Nazi General Erwin Rommel. Rommel was a skilled leader whose talents were rightly respected by the Allies. Rommel displayed numerous instances of chivalrous behavior toward prisoners of war (even during 1941 when the Axis was winning WW II and he was unconcerned about capture by the Allies). But, Rommel was fighting for an immoral regime.

    Another distinction. You write that Pres. Buchanan was “smart enough” to understand that shots fired at a merchant vessel are no grounds for war. That is beside the point. The fact that shots were fired and that Ft. Sumter was attacked several months later is proof of Confederate belligerence. Your distortion of the historical record to blame Pres. Lincoln for starting the Civil War is where we must disagree.

    Appeasing the Confederacy by simply abandoning Federal installations at the first whiff of grapeshot would only encourage further Confederate aggression. An analogy from today. If California secedes from the Union and establishes Glorious People’s Kalifornia the U.S. should not simply cede Federal installations in California such as naval bases, Vandenberg Air Force Base and the 29 Palms desert training base to the Party of Death.

    Furthermore, numerous reputable historians point out that the Confederacy, rather than being a haven for state’s rights as you imply, was rapidly developing into something akin to an autocracy or authoritarian regime. The Confederacy’s society was toxic and unsustainable, and state’s rights were withering away. Additionally, imagine the situation if a Southern state attempted to secede from the Confederacy.

    One more point. The Democrat Party’s refusal in 1860 to accept the election of Abraham Lincoln is roughly analogous to the Democrat Party’s refusal in 2016 to accept the election of Donald Trump.

    A certain perspective on the Civil War claims that it was a “War of Northern Aggression.” A stronger, more accurate perspective is that the Civil War was a War of Southern Aggression against the Union and against the Confederacy’s own people. God bless Pres. Lincoln for persevering, and thank God that the Union was intact for the First and Second World Wars and the Cold War. Cheers.

  44. WVC says:

    @Semper Gumby – If California seceded it would be well worth any cost to wish her bon voyage (including every and all military installations). We should count ourselves blessed!

    You’re just regurgitating boiler plate “Yankees Good, Abraham Good, Confederates Evil” talking points. There are many scholarly arguments from the other perspective, and you’ve grossly over-simplified Confederate culture, history, society, and government (trying to establish a government while being invaded by one’s very large, very wealthy, very aggressive neighbor is no easy task). Obviously, this is no place to get into the details necessary to bring about a better understanding. That would take way more than a comment thread.

    Although I take great umbrage that you actually do, in fact, equate the Confederates with Nazis. At this point, I don’t see much difference between your view point and the Woke Mob. If you can condemn a man like General Lee, than I’m not sure on what grounds you can NOT condemn George Washington. This insistence to judge prior generations by modern standards has no place in a civilized society. It rankles Southerners especially since the much more virulent racism of the North somehow gets left out of all the calculations.

    “Southern Aggression against the Union” – does that phrase even mean anything? Is that like saying a battered wife trying to flee her husband is performing an act of aggression on their marriage?

    Try reading “Mr. Lincoln Goes to War.” I don’t believe it’s from a Southern perspective, but gives a decent account of Lincoln and his war. Or read anything by DiLorenzo. I’m not demonizing Lincoln, but his words and actions on the historical record sure don’t reconcile with the saintly image taught in school and is part of the “establishment” history.

    At any rate, good day to you, and I’m done with this comment thread. Feel free to continue to besmirch the honor of the Confederates. You certainly have plenty of company on your side.

  45. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC: Calm down. Your wishing good riddance to California, including military bases, is short-sighted. Reflect for a moment on the assets at those bases and the wider consequences regarding strategic mobility, particularly if the West Coast as a whole secedes.

    Unfortunately, you are resorting, again, to ad hominem (“regurgitating boilerplate” “no difference between you and the Woke Mob”) and also jumping to conclusions (Confederacy is Evil, General Lee is Condemned). This type of response does not bode well for further fruitful discussion.

    Read my thoughtful comment to you again calmly and carefully. Make distinctions between what I wrote and your erroneous and hasty conclusions. And to answer your question, Yes, the phrase “War of Southern Aggression” has valid meaning. Cheers.

  46. WVC says:

    @Semper Gumby – You mix in quite a lot of “ad hominem” yourself with your thoughtful points. You call the Confederacy an “immoral regime” by analogy, you call their society “toxic,” you liken them to modern day anti-Christian California and the Party of Death, and you compare them with modern day Democrats (which is about as low as you can go). I guess, technically, it’s not literally demonizing the Confederacy because it’s not likening them to actual demons, but comparing them with Nazis and the Party of Death sure isn’t what I’d call even-handed or thoughtful. I actually haven’t cast any aspersions against the Yankees or even Mr. Lincoln except for saying he’s not the saint he’s often portrayed to be and was responsible for the War (which a sound historical argument can be made, against, I again reference “Mr. Lincoln Goes to War” or any of DiLorenzo’s work).

    I have read your comments and feel it’s not worth trying to pull together quotes from the various statements of secession, speeches from Jefferson Davis, quotes from Lincoln on his actual purpose for the war, a reconstruction of the events leading up to Sumter, a detailed outline of the governmental challenges Davis was trying to balance between States Rights and defending the Confederacy against Northern Invasion, or the vast differences in moral character between the majority of Confederate soldiers and Yankee soldiers (especially when they chose to wage open war on women and children). This is a complicated piece of history with much to be said on both sides, and to pretend that States Rights wasn’t a significant factor is to ignore mountains of primary sources. Sure, “reputable” historians will disagree, but I can point to plenty of “reputable” historians who would support my position. Appeals to authority don’t really accomplish much.

    But I will say your comments indicate to me that there’s one thing upon which we can completely agree. There’s no fruitful discussion to be found here.

    The only point I will insist upon, though, is that letting California go her own way is not short sighted. But that, alas, is another point to be argued at another time on some other website.

    I can’t let the phrase “Southern Aggression” go without some additional comment. Please compare General Lee and his soldiers when he invaded Maryland and later Pennsylvania with Sherman and Grant on their numerous invasions below the Mason Dixon. I sure don’t remember the Southerners burning any Northern homes and even entire cities to the ground . . . I think you’re pressing that particular point a little too far.

  47. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC: Note that these events were 150 years ago, there is no point to refighting the Civil War. One reason to discuss history is to compare and contrast, and thereby learn lessons which will then assist in planning for future contingencies.

    You wrote: “The only point I will insist upon, though, is that letting California go her own way is not short sighted.”

    Clearly, that is not the only point you insist on. Anyway, make an effort to grasp the consequences of such a scenario- they involve more than strategic mobility. Then you will be better prepared to debate and defend your position. Though, again, you will have a tough time defending the position you have chosen.

    Note that making analogies between generals is not the same as “ad hominem.” Gen. Patton is often compared to Gen. Rommel, there’s no need, as you did, to take such comparisons personally. And, agree or disagree, Gen. Sherman had a reason for burning Atlanta- make an effort to understand his reasoning whether you agree or not with his action.

    The Confederacy started the war, and slavery in these United States had to end. God bless Pres. Lincoln and thank God the U.S. was back in business as it entered the Twentieth Century. Cheers.

  48. robtbrown says:

    1. California is not going to secede for the same reason that the South did–money. A few years ago the phrase appeared “too big to fail”, e. g. , General Motors. No one seemed to have mentioned that California was also too big to fail.

    For years the California economy has been dependent on Federal money, incl the defense industry.

    2 Before S Carolina attacked Ft Sumter, a request was made to Buchanan to return it to the state. He refused.

    3. Some historians think that 1,000,000 died in the Civil War if civilians are included. IMHO, it was a Providenial punishment for slavery.

    4 Lincoln was perhaps the most interesting figure ever to be President. A fine mind with little or no formal education, he became a railroad lawyer. And he wrote the most memorable speech in US history, not to mention his second inaugural address.

    5. The comments about Lee are naive and reflect a lack of knowledge of career military. Their work is dedicated to service–not policy making. They go where they are sent whether they agree with the policy or not. I have known many officers field grade and above. During the Viet Nam war almost all were against it. In fact, the Army resisted it. Westmoreland was given command because others declined it.

    When McNamara published his BS “memoirs”, I asked two retired LTC, both who had done three VN tours what they thought of it. The nicest comment was: “If I could, I’d put a bullet in his brain and put him out of his misery.”

    Still, they served because that’s what the military does.

    6. Lee didn’t embrace the war, rather it was serving his state (which in those days was more important than the nation). BTW, it was Lee who arrested and hanged John Brown, the abolitionist, on behalf of the US govt.

    7. Slavery was a terrible thing (and dying out until the invention of the cotton gin), but it no more defines the South than Sweat Shops define the North. BTW, Sherman, who was the first President of what became LSU, destroyed certain areas of the South because he knew that the war was desired by the big plantation owners and those who did business with them.

  49. Semper Gumby says:

    robtbrown wrote: “California is not going to secede for the same reason that the South did–money.”

    You do not know the future. Familiarize yourself with contingency planning and the California-China connection. Furthermore, more than money was going on with the South’s secession.

    “Before S Carolina attacked Ft Sumter, a request was made to Buchanan to return it to the state. He refused.”

    Good for Pres. Buchanan, it was Federal territory. The South chose to use force to seize territory.

    “The comments about Lee are naive and reflect a lack of knowledge of career military.”

    It’s unclear what “comments about Lee” you are referring to. Furthermore, your attempt at insight displays only your lack of knowledge of this topic.

    “Lee didn’t embrace the war”

    Open any history book on the Civil War.

    “Sherman, who was the first President of what became LSU, destroyed certain areas of the South because he knew that the war was desired by the big plantation owners…”

    Take a closer look.

    “Slavery was a terrible thing (and dying out until the invention of the cotton gin), but it no more defines the South than…”

    Slavery was important to the Confederacy. Cheers.

  50. WVC says:

    @Semper Gumby – I think everyone here understands your position. The Federal Government is the greatest of all goods – any who oppose it are wrong. There’s no such thing as States Rights. The South and the Confederacy were terrible and equivalent to Nazis. Anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t understand history or just needs to “take a closer look.” The South was the only part of America that had anything to do with slavery (never mind the slavery that existed in the North or the fortunes made by Yankee shipmasters in the slave trade or the fact that at Appomattox only one of the Generals owned any slaves and it wasn’t General Lee).

    You can let this comment thread go, shipmate. You’ve said more than your share.

  51. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC wrote: “Semper Gumby – I think everyone here understands your position. The Federal Government is the greatest of all goods – any who oppose it are wrong.”

    Calm down. You are, once again, jumping to an erroneous conclusion. You’re effort to speak for “everyone here” is presumptuous.

    “There’s no such thing as States Rights.”

    This is pulling words out of thin air. Read my comments again.

    “The South and the Confederacy were terrible and equivalent to Nazis.”

    This is pulling words out of thin air. Read my comments again.

    “Anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t understand history or just needs to “take a closer look.””

    This is pulling words out of thin air. Read my comments again.

    “The South was the only part of America that had anything to do with slavery (never mind the slavery that existed in the North or the fortunes made by Yankee shipmasters in the slave trade or the fact that at Appomattox only one of the Generals owned any slaves and it wasn’t General Lee).”

    This is pulling words out of thin air. Read my comments again. You are also attempting to deflect.

    “You can let this comment thread go, shipmate. You’ve said more than your share.”

    Your arbitrary commands, WVC, are irrelevant. The suggestion to be made here is that you are hostile and angry because you are attempting to defend the indefensible. You have constructed a massive strawman and are tilting at it fruitlessly. You are now resorting to demanding silence rather than undertake the essential work of examining your own conscience and acknowledging the flaws in your position.

    God bless Pres. Lincoln, these United States, and you. Cheers.

  52. WVC says:

    @Semper Gumby – God Bless you as well, Semper Gumby. I’m afraid I’m not guilty of any of the things you’ve charged me with. I just understand what the purpose of this comment thread is, and it’s definitely not here for me to educate you on American history. I read your comments plenty close.
    I simply disagree with you, and not because my position is indefensible. I honestly still have no idea how this turned into a “the Confederacy is Evil” comment thread – I’d swear it was about Joe Biden at one point in time. At any rate, peace to you, and God will do what He will with Lincoln. It’s none of my business.

  53. Semper Gumby says:

    WVC: “I just understand what the purpose of this comment thread is, and it’s definitely not here for me to educate you on American history.”

    Hopefully, though, you learned something about American history.

    “I honestly still have no idea how this turned into a “the Confederacy is Evil” comment thread.”

    That’s understandable. Review the comments, you are the only one using that phrase. Cheers.

Comments are closed.