I see a disturbing trend in many states that become nationalistic - the leaders co-opt the religion of the people and begin to merge religious rhetoric and traditions into the state apparatus. Soon the people find themselves worshiping the state and its leaders instead of God.

I think this statement needs to be modified, since it is lacking in historical context. For one, the worship of Herod was that of a god, not just a really good person. At that time in history, most people believed that gods walked in their midst. Secondly, the Stalin and Hussein statues were done while the leaders were alive, as a tribute to their greatness, even almost to their god-likeness. In contrast, the Lincoln Memorial was built 50 years AFTER he died, as a memorial to a great president and a great era in our nation’s history. Not one person thinks he was a god, nor was he alive to take any praise.

Let’s assume that the Israelites had built a statue to Moses fifty years after his death. How do you suppose God would have viewed that? I think there is no argument that monuments on this scale are of pagan origin. We don’t typically use the word “god” in describing those whom we have decided are great leaders, but I think they often do take on a god-like status in our revisionist history. In my mind, I don’t view Lincoln as a great president. Nor do I view the Civil War period as a great era; I’m basically neutral and don’t have an opinion one way or another.

What I find interesting is the deifying of the late Ronald Reagan. He was a likable and charismatic guy, no doubt. He may have even been a good president, but all of this chasing after the man’s legacy I find to be a bit much. Just about every Republican presidential candidate (including my man Ron Paul) used every ample opportunity to exploit his name during the debates. Maybe its just me, but it seemed to border on Reagan worship. But, like I wrote in the article, this is strictly my opinion.

The Israelites example isn’t the same thing… back then, every statue was built to depict a god. So a statue to Moses would have been raising him up to the stature of a god. Meanwhile, the Lincoln memorial is no different than the Washington memorial (except in artistic style), neither is consider to be god worship. Just remembering an important man in history. Contrast that to Stalin and Hussein, who put up (or allowed to have put up) many statues during their lifetimes. They gloried in the worship.

As for the “greatness” of the Civil War… to me, it was both great and terrible. Terrible that it cost so many lives, but great that a country would take the necessary steps to wipe out slavery. It is very unfortunate that we couldn’t have done it as bloodlessly as Wilberforce did in England.

Just to confirm, are you claiming the the civil war was fought to end slavery?

This reminds me of an account I read in the autobiography of Lester Sumrall. He said that during the days leading up to World War II, he had the opportunity to preach in German churches. He said that these people were Christians, but they wholeheartedly followed Hitler. They even seized his offering to give it to the fuhrer. Could that happen in the U.S.? I don’t know, but we are leading towards our own American brand of fascism. So what Colin has said is very important.

People have to realize that these “evil” things such as fascism, communism, etc… don’t really come from the outside, from men with horns or leading foreign armies. These things are local phenomenon, with a brand of totalitarianism that appears to be a recipe for success that fits within a countries traditions, values and form of government. No two socialist countries are alike.

In order to diagnose fascism or socialism in America, we need to look at populism and nationalism. Who are the popular enemies and the popular heroes? What are the popular religions? What values do a majority of people hold? It is from these areas that fascism and socialism will arise.

- Civil War
- World War I
- The New Deal
- Industrial Revolution America

In addition, what former leaders have been idealized as upholding virtue and are being drawn upon today to justify furtherance of popular/nationalist measures:

- Abe Lincoln
- FDR
- Woodrow Wilson
- Ronald Reagan
- John F. Kennedy

I am not terrified of either of these people, but I think they represent a precursor to left/right socialism in that they are coopting formerly conservative/liberal principles into non-principled populism.

- Abe Lincoln
- FDR
- Woodrow Wilson
- Ronald Reagan
- John F. Kennedy ”

This is basically what I meant by saying some of these guys have taken on a god-like persona in history. American History is American religion where politics are concerned. If you question Lincoln’s decision to go to war (as did Paul) you are a heretic or worse, a racist. Critical thinking has been abandoned for an abbreviated version of “truth”. When we build monuments to men, we make them something other than human. We may not call them gods, but we sure do treat them like gods.

Maybe. But what does that mean really? We could also say that God judged Israel by using enemy nations. Some have said God used 9/11 to judge America, and that’s quite possible. (To be clear, I’m not saying with absolute certainty that is the case, but it would not be inconsistent with how God judges nations.) If God uses one nation to judge another, does that elevate the instrument of judgment to some kind of special status in the eyes of God? Certainly not.

Not sure I agree. Sure, slavery was an additive due to the labor and agriculture based society that the South represented. Otherwise, it started out as an opposition to what was once again considered “taxation without representation” (in a way), in the form of shipping tariffs (the “Tariffs of Abominations”). Moreso, the whole federalist vs. confederate thing. Slavery was the emotional issue tossed in, which makes Ole Abe seem the hero. When for reals: 1) The emancipation proclamation freed already free slaves, and 2) Abe Lincoln cared neither for them as people or humans. He still considered them sub-citizen, but believed no man should own another. Probably his only GOOD quality.

And the confederates as evil…

Let’s be clear, pretty much everyone thought that blacks were sub-human. This idea, as wrong as it was, was understandably bred by the colonial era contact that Europe had with Africa, which had little to no civilizational qualities. A lot of very good men believed that blacks were no the intellectual equals of whites. Judging them by today’s scientifically advanced mores is arrogant and in the wrong.

Still doesn’t change the fact that it was tossed in as emotional coinage. I’m not doubting the divisive nature of the issue, I’m merely challenging the oft heard rhetoric in today’s high school history manual that declares the North as “good” for fighting a war to free the slaves. It never was a war about slavery. Since slavery was such a large part of Southern agriculture, and therefore a main workforce in Southern economy, is it any wonder that the North used it to an advantage? I’m not practicing revisionist history, as everything I have said is true. In the case of the civil war, slavery was a tacked onto the issue to add insult to injury, plus emotional ammunition. Let me rephrase, the “free the slaves” idea was added. Freeing the slaves was not a priority, but a secondary objective.

Obviously. I haven’t nor do I doubt it. It’s just that the idea of honest Abe freeing the slaves because he was the good ole nice boy may make one’s heart swell with patriotic pride, but it’s about as important and true as the cherry tree and the coin thrown across the Potomac. I’m not judging him by today’s scientifically advanced standards, but merely pointing out that all too often in history he is indeed remembered for being quite the OPPOSITE. As in, taught that he was different. A “slave lover” as it were. I’m merely making sure we understand that he operated under the same guise as everyone else, and that the “free the slaves” rhetoric was merely that…rhetoric. While involved as an issue in the Civil War by automatic default, it was neither the direct cause, motivation or reason for it. Thinking it is, which is how it is taught, is a perfect example of “victor’s write the history books”.

Slavery was used by the both the confederate and union propagandists to advocate their greater philosophies of government - strong central authority and force of unity in the norther, confederacy and state sovereignty in the south.

In only the most concrete level was the war about “slavery” on either the north or the south. Assigning that issue it’s relevance to the historical context, and looking at the more universal principles, Lincoln becomes quite a tyrant and the southern cause, a bit more principled and just (although not purely so by any stretch).

I know what you’re getting at. I’ve studied history too, and in Texas I encounter a fair bit of support for states rights. But I don’t believe it. States rights is just a way to justify slavery (and later segregation) and turn it into an appeal to some noble principle. I have to ask, did everybody who supported states rights really support it because they honestly believed in that principle? My suspicion is that most people’s motives were not that pure. States rights is a smokescreen. Why is it never mentioned except in relation to slavery and segregation?

There is some truth to what you’re saying, but states rights is relevant to issues today too. Take the so-called “Real ID”, for instance. The federal government is making states comply with this national ID by making it so that citizens from states that resist the Real ID are not able to board commercial airplanes without a passport. Basically they want to microchip your driver’s license so that you are always carrying your “papers”. Fascism, in other words.

I know what you’re getting at. I’ve studied history too, and in Texas I encounter a fair bit of support for states rights. But I don’t believe it. States rights is just a way to justify slavery (and later segregation) and turn it into an appeal to some noble principle. I have to ask, did everybody who supported states rights really support it because they honestly believed in that principle? My suspicion is that most people’s motives were not that pure.

Most of the people on the ground would have used it exactly as you are saying. It the same thing as politicians today going after gas prices and housing bubbles rather monetary and fiscal principles of markets and government. But there are always greater issues involved and the few people who are making big decisions are less concerned about the effects and more about the causes. It was no different with the civil war - and those who came to understand the greater principles (albeit many through slavery first) were fighting for those purer ideological points. This is easily available in the historical record. But even more obvious is the reasoning behind the northern invasion, which blatantly from the get-go had very little to do with “ending slavery.”

States rights is a smokescreen. Why is it never mentioned except in relation to slavery and segregation?

This is not true at all. While it is usually linked to some issue of the day and not as a pure abstract principle, it has been linked to everything from medical insurance, gay marriage, drug laws, identification measures, taxes and so on…

Exactly… why do we impugn the motives of Lincoln (who was much MORE likely to be of pure motives) than of the South (who had an obvious conflict of interest involved)?

Obviously we cannot go into the mids of the people involved, but based on the evidence at hand (and taking into account differing ethical and political views) we can easily deduce the principles behind the actions:

North - national unity, federation, economic trade, strong central authority, constitutional liberalism

South - community sovereignty, confederation, “fair” trade, weak centralization, constitutional conservatism

Being a person who believes in individual rights, maximum freedom and decentralized government (so called conservative principles) the south was clearly (to use your language) of “pure motives.” Lincoln invaded sovereign states, suspended basic rights of all the citizens (both north and south), was a white supremacist, jailed journalists and political opponents and rigged the 1864 election. This is all well know history that is conveniently forgotten in oder to provide a “hero” of the civil war, when in fact it was all a giant mistake that could have been completely avoided.

No one disagrees that slavery is wrong and needed to be fixed immediately. Heck, if I actually thought the war was about slavery and it was waged constitutionally, then I would have been all for it. But it most definitely was not.

Colin, states rights is not synonymous with more personal liberty. You should know that. It’s not any better to have the state government violate your rights than to have the federal government violate them. You can’t support states rights by appealing to the principle of individual liberty.

I made no such comment that state’s rights is synonymous with individual liberty. I said that I believed in individual liberty and then in a separate context I discussed states rights as being better than central authority. I would also say that the more local a government, the more it will tend to be friendlier to individual liberty - although there are alway extreme examples.

You can appeal to the rule of law and to the proper way of interpreting the Constitution. On that count I agree–the Civil War was unconstitutional. That doesn’t mean that the Confederate states were great promoters of individual liberty, though. The states rights question is about which government has the authority, not about the individual rights of citizens.

I don’t think anyone here is declaring the south were promoting individual liberty, they engaged many of the measures that Lincoln did, including conscription a year before the north did. My point is that moral ideology (in my opinion) was clearly on the south’s side, especially in terms of legal authority.

Also, I reject the idea that a state government is more likely to respect individual liberties than the federal government. Both governments are so large that the scope isn’t much different.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but didn’t you say that by standards of individual rights the south had “pure motives”? Is that not what you meant?

You originally said “individual liberty” which was only implied in my statements. I, however, cited individual rights, and only then as part of a package also include decentralized power and maximum freedom. I was not building a case for morality of cause on “individual rights” alone. We all know it is quite possible to have “individual rights” and still have many other evil present. What I said, and there seems to be no ambiguity in my statement, both in terms on content and meaning, is that the south, because they appealed to greater ethics of liberty (my list) in their cause, had a morally superior position (in my opinion).

Also, I reject the idea that a state government is more likely to respect individual liberties than the federal government. Both governments are so large that the scope isn’t much different.

Nowadays, I would agree with you. In 1860, I would not. The states were smaller and were governed much more tightly than they are now. However, my point again, was not that “state” government is more likely to respect individual rights, but merely that, by way of principle, as government becomes more localized, it is more likely (on aggregate) to be friendlier to individual liberty.

What I said, and there seems to be no ambiguity in my statement, both in terms on content and meaning, is that the south, because they appealed to greater ethics of liberty (my list) in their cause, had a morally superior position (in my opinion).

Yes, they may have appealed to the “greater ethics of liberty,” but in most of their hearts, they cared more about economic pain that free slaves would cause. I fail to see how they are any different to the Lincoln’s appeal to the greater ethics of liberty of ALL people, except that in their case, they had much more reason to have a conflict of interest and much to gain from secession. In comparison, Lincoln personally had very little to gain from keeping the South in the Union. All one has to do is read Lincoln’s personal diaries and writings to see his passion for keeping the country together and for freeing slaves.

The southern people did, for the most part, care more about slavery than principles, but that does not excuse engaging in the greater abrogation of freedom to deliver slaves. Again, this could have been done without war.

Lincoln did have much to gain from what he did, in the same way that Wilson and FDR had much to gain - of Bush for that matter. We can read the writing of Lincoln and see one thing, but his actions reveal much more obvious and devious motives at play. Lincoln may have advertised that he hated slavery (although I don’t know of this happening until it was congruent with war propaganda) but he used slavery-esque principles in his means - and ruthlessly so. His “passion” was evidently that of every politician - say one thing and do another.