Milestones
Today is January 20, marking the inaugural anniversaries of recent new presidents. Notably, it is fifty years since John Kennedy was sworn in, thirty years since Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, and ten years since George "Dubya" Bush took over the oval office.
President Kennedy is remembered, of course, for the signature line in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." As has been pointed out, the expression is contrary to our cherished concept of democracy - in a democratic country the citizen is entitled to ask what his country can do for him.
Kennedy clearly was issuing a call to service, not trying to institute any sort of dictatorship. Earlier in the same speech he said we should bear any burden, make any sacrifice to assure the success of of liberty. I think he was keenly aware of the differences between freedom and coercion.
Less is recalled about the speeches of Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan had a flair for the dramatic, as evidenced by the "Government is not the answer to our problems - government is the problem," line. His inaugural was a call to lessen the role of government, not increase it.
Can anyone repeat what George Bush said in 2001? What I remember is lingering feelings of rage over the 2000 election. In retrospect, I'm willing to concede that Bush probably did carry Florida and win the election, but there should have been a recount there.
We are also beginning the sesquicentennial of the Civil War. In January 1861 most of the "cotton south" seceded from the United States. By February they had set up their own national government, the Confederate States of America, and inaugurated Jefferson Davis as their provisional president. The president of the United States, James Buchanan, bestirred himself long enough to say secession is illegal, but he was not empowered to stop it, surely one of the the most feeble decrepit utterances ever from a president.
Most of the country was waiting with baited breath for the arrival of president-elect Lincoln, who would take office on March 4. Lincoln was clearly on record, claiming the union is indivisible, but remained silent about what his policy would be in the crisis.
The situation was very fluid. Proposals were floated to create a northwest confederacy, some people went as far as to say the new Confederacy would absorb the entire United States except for New England, and a commission proposed Constitutional amendments to guarantee slavery in perpetuity, thinking that would lure the south back into the USA.
Luckily, none of these ideas went very far. When Abraham Lincoln finally became president, he made one of the truly memorable speeches in American history, clearly stating his policy, firmly, but in a spirit of friendship and reconciliation.
He concluded saying, "We are not enemies but friends. We must not become enemies." That's good advice for us in 2011, as it was in 1861.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePete, very good article, but you left out something many people leave out, or don't even know about.
ReplyDeleteIt's not politically correct to point this out, but it's a 600lb gorilla in the room. Let's mention it.
You left out the Southern Ultimatums of 1861. These five ultimatums were more than the inflammed rantings by Southern leaders and newspapermen -- they were the basic demands of the South from 1800 on.
Southern leaders issued five Ultimatums, according to Southern newspapers, just before the war started. All five of the Ultimatums were about one thing -- the SPREAD of slavery.
Not merely the spread of slavery, but the spread of slavery by force, by the government. Slavery MUST be spread, and spread AGAINST the will of the people and AGAINST any state rights to object to any part of slavery.
It was a violent and clear repudiation of any pretense of State's Rights. In fact, it specifically said no state could pass it's own laws regarding blacks.
It even went further - it demanded under threat of war (that is what an ulatimatum means) that states pass laws that allow not only slavery, but force people to "respect" slavery.
Southern newspapers announced these ULtimatums with great pride -- Richmond newspapers calling it "THE TRUE ISSUE". New York newspapers covered the Ultimatums too -- and likely those in DC.
Lincoln, of course, would not obey these Ultimatums. The Ultimatums were insane.
Kansas, for example, had just voted 98% to 2% to keeep slavery out forever. And Kansas was admitted into the Union. The Southern ULtimatums were that the territories (they meant Kansas) must accept and respect slavery.
Kansas people just overwhelmingly rejected slavery! Not only by the 98% vote, but by a bloody war to throw out the slavers.
That didn't phase the Southern leaders in their Ultimatums. Not one iota. According to the ULtimatums, people must accept slavery, period.
The Southern Ultimatums went even further. No state could make it's own laws about any civil rights issue, whatsoever. None. No state could decide it's own laws about run away slaves, or the transportation of slaves. No state could even allow trials of ANY kind.
By this insane "logic," no state would have any rights whatsoever. States that can not even set up its own trials or pass its own laws, are not even states.
Who would decide what states can and can not do? Slavers. Although the Ultimatums does not mention this specifically, it says states can not pass their own laws or do any number of things slavers did not like. Therefore, in essense, these were ULtimatums that slave owners decide what went on -- everywhere.
The South had long given lip service to "States Rights" but they actually detested states rights as much as they hated free speech, and they outlawed free speech from 1820 on. But that is another topic.
By !860, when Kansas kicked the slavery out, and then were admitted into the Union, it was clear to Southern leaders slavery could not possibly be spread by their usual means, by corruption, threats, and deceit. Kansas slapped the slavers in the face -- that is what they were irrate about.
And the Southern Five Ultimatums were the promise of war if Kansas and the Union did not obey.
Keep in mind, Southern leaders were men who regulary got what they wanted by violence and threats. That was essentially their power -- violence and threats against slaves. They had got what they wanted for 50 years by violence and threats. Their success had empowered them.
The "Compromise" of 1820 was no compromise, it was a capitulation to SOuthern ULtimatums. So to the "Compromise" of 1850. Each time the Southern leaders demanded more and more. Now, in 1861, they were at it again, demanding more.
http://fivedemands.blogspot.com/
http://violentsuppression.blogspot.com/