We Hold These Truths...(part I)

Around Memorial Day I read an opinion column by the ever entertaining Garrison Keillor. A small footnote here if anyone wants to get a real picture of America I would suggest they get a hold of anything by Mr. Keillor and while I normally loathe books on CD he is a definite exception. There was a line in there which stuck with, indeed it stuck with so much that I almost changed my header. Keillor made the point that, "dishonesty makes for poor rhetoric". That's not to say that individuals are outright lying, because as we often see, lies make the best rhetoric. In his column Keillor notes

"The Current Occupant drove over the bridge to Arlington and spoke at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, a site of powerful reverence, and his speechwriter, in a hurry to finish and enjoy his weekend, gave him 'From their deaths must come a world where the cruel dreams of tyrants and terrorists are frustrated and foiled - where our nation is more secure from attack, and where the gift of liberty is secured for millions who have never known it,' a line cobbled together from scrap lumber. Shades of 'the last full measure of devotion' and 'we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain' but made from different cloth. The reputation of the Gettysburg Address remains secure.

Dishonesty makes for poor rhetoric and that’s what has gutted this beautiful holiday. The ideas it celebrates - that our young men and women did their duty and died in defense of their country - are simply not true. Vietnam was lost and it didn’t matter to the security of the United States. Saigon fell and life in the States went on without a blink. And since the end of selective service, these honored dead are somebody else’s sons and daughters, not ours - one good reason why there is so little protest of this war: If the Army was conscripting our children to go to Baghdad, the Occupant’s approval rating would be in the low teens".

First a little background might help. Even though the US was over a hundred years old at the time of the Civil War it had still not flushed out its identity and quite what it stood for (beyond rhetoric of course). The Lockean nature of the declaration of independence and the fact that the new country was made up of an amalgamation of states made it somewhat unique. The idea being of course that every state voluntary chooses union in order to make something greater than the sum of the individual parts. Certainly this situation was a unique test for the idea of Republicanism, which had previously gorged on itself in France and given credence to the Leviathanian vision of humanity.

The start of the war and its reasons are well documented else where (or wiki it if your too lazy to find a book). As it's rhetoric not so much history that we're interested in. First, on a throwaway basis is the fact that many Southerners even today (and this includes members of my own family) call it the war of "Northern Aggression". Odd considering that the first official shots were fired by secessionists at Fort Sumter. Now obviously if we look at subtexts it could and has been argued that the South felt either slavery must grow or die and the fact that the Republican party had opposed the expansion of slavery into new territories was seen as a hostile action that would destroy the southern economy and their entire way of life. Whether that way of life was worth preserving is another question all together. An interesting look at how the South dealt with the legacy can be found here.

The semantics of the secessionists is another issue of interest as they referred to themselves as "confederates" this of course being an allusion to the Articles of Confederation which gave stronger credence to State's and individual rights. The fact that this was being forwarded to preserve a system of slavery is only part of it. Many who filled the ranks of the Confederate army did not own land, let alone slaves, and the President of the Confederate States, Jefferson Davis did not mention slavery at all in his inauguration speech but used the emphasis of State's rights as his rational. Indeed it would be interesting to see if some poor grad student has yet to do a Lockean analysis on the C.S.A. and how the Federalist stance in some places directly contradicted the Lockean social contract which was so heavily alluded to in the Declaration of Indepence.

It is worth recalling at this juncture that the North itself was not the land of milk and honey of tolerance for blacks and immigrants. Also of note is Frederick Douglass's autobiography in which he recounts almost being beaten to death by a mob a northern shipyard. Indeed Haymarket Martyr Albert Parons fought for the confederacy, though later felt that the cause of succession could not be separated from slavery and regretted it.

And Lincoln, who more than any other American came to symbolize the Union and the cause of freedom. I would not seek to diminish the man for whom I must admit I hold a grudging respect (as much as I will cede any politician) but we must be honest and critical in our view of his words and actions. In a debate in 1858 Lincoln stated that,

"[he was]"not in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races".

He also supported the Corwin Constitutional Amendment which is remarkably similar to a provision in the Confederate Constitution which banned international slave trade in the C.S.A. yet allowed it remain locally. In 1862 he outlined his position as thus,

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.' ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that".

Though he later said that signing the proclamation was one of the best things he had ever done it also remains that he did as a tactic to raise the fear of a two front war rather than a principled point which it later became.

Which brings us back of course to the Gettysburg Address. This address marked a turning point in the rhetorical war the same in which the battle itself was a turning point in the military war (it was the last real Southern offensive). It is a piece of political writing that remains as one of the highest levels of political discourse in this country's history and I feel could go toe to toe with some of the best political speeches internationally. This is due in large part to the fact that Lincoln (unlike most politicians and myself) understood that at times, less is more and that there is a time to simply shut the fuck up.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

It is from this work that the rhetorical war shifted from the preservation of the union to the idea of liberty and freedom as sacrosanct. That is not to say that the preservation of the Union diminished but that it took a rhetorical backseat as the military campaign progressed. Let us be realistic, liberty and freedom don't motivate militarism the way an impending army does, Lincoln suited his rhetoric accordingly. As the military threat to the union receded Lincoln elaborated his language accordingly or as much as his newly acquired artistic license would allow him. The shift in emphais is also apparant in the address itself. As in the beginning Lincoln notes that the dead gave their lives for "the nation" as a body (ie the Union itself). To the end in which liberty and freedom and the primary motives (which are conviently embodied by the government).


Okay this is going to have to be a two part post as I've gone on for too long on the prologue and have yet touch on the reason I started on this course. Give me a bit to get the second part done and it will make more sense.

P.S. As today is Father's Day let them know you care and appreciate what they do