New York Times to Biden—Time to Go!

July 12, 2022July 26, 2022By Patrick J. Buchanan

When President Joe Biden retired in Rehoboth Beach on Saturday night, he likely did not expect to find a severed horse’s head under his bed covers. But there it was, courtesy of The New York Times. “At 79, Biden is Testing the Boundaries of Age and the Presidency” ran the headline over Sunday’s devastating front-page story.

Message: Time’s up, Joe. Time to go. Second term is out.

Biden officials and White House aides acknowledge, the story ran, that, “Mr. Biden looks older than just a few years ago … His energy level … is not what it was, and some aides quietly watch out for him. He often shuffles when he walks, and aides worry he will trip on a wire. He stumbles over words during public events, and they hold their breath to see if he makes it to the end without a gaffe.”

On and on it went, the Times tale of Biden’s cognitive decline:

Mr. Biden’s … speeches can be flat and listless. He sometimes loses his train of thought, has trouble summoning names or appears momentarily confused. More than once, he has promoted Vice President Kamala Harris, calling her ‘President Harris.’ Mr. Biden, who overcame a childhood stutter, stumbles over words like ‘kleptocracy.’ He has said Iranian when he meant Ukrainian and several times called Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, ‘John,’ confusing him with the late Republican senator of that name from Virginia …
The White House has had to walk back some of his ad-libbed comments, such as when he vowed a military response if China attacks Taiwan or declared that President Vladimir V. Putin ‘cannot remain in power’ in Russia.

It is not too much to infer from this stunning piece on the front page of the Times that America’s newspaper of record, a citadel of liberalism, has decided it is now fair game to confront Biden on the age-and-infirmities issue. Nor is it too much to say that the Times is giving its own belated validation to claims made for many months by conservative media that Biden is neither physically nor cognitively capable of handling the duties of his office, let alone to serve a second term, which would end in 2029 with Biden at 86 years of age.

Yet, make no mistake. With this article, the Times has provided cover for, and given sanction to, ambitious Biden rivals to take on the Democratic president in the way Sens. Gene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy took on Lyndon Johnson in 1968 and Ted Kennedy took on Jimmy Carter in 1980. Not only did the Times‘ decision to lend credibility in its Sunday edition to the charge that Biden has lost the capacity to serve as President, Monday’s lede story drove the message home: “Democrats Sour on Biden, Citing Age and Economy,” was the top headline. The sub-head read: “Polls Show Most Want New ’24 Candidate, as Pessimism Becomes Pervasive.”

A New York Times-Siena College poll of all Democrats had found that only 33 percent approve of the Biden presidency and 64 percent want a new nominee in 2024. “The backlash against Mr. Biden and desire to move in a new direction were particularly acute among younger voters,” said the Times. “In the survey, 94 percent of Democrats under the age of 30 said they would prefer a different presidential nominee.”

These twin stories, coming as they do, back-to-back in the Times and placed so prominently, are certain to have impact. Democrats will not miss the message that the Times is ready to bolt on Biden, and if Democrats wish to win and keep Donald Trump out of the White House, they need a new horse to ride. This one is lame.

Ironically, on the op-ed page of Sunday’s Times, columnist Frank Bruni seemed to be warning against a wide-open race for the nomination, which the Times news division seemed to be encouraging. Wrote Bruni:

Biden’s age, dismal approval rating and seeming inability to inspire confidence in the party’s ranks have created an extraordinary situation in which there’s no ironclad belief that he’ll run for a second term, no universal agreement that he should and a growing roster of Democrats whose behavior can be read as preparation to challenge or step in for him. I’ve never seen anything quite like it.

“Democrats can’t have their knives out the way they do now. Our president is already bleeding plenty.”

Bottom line: The stories in Sunday’s and Monday’s Times detailing the physical and political disabilities of Biden suggest that establishment Democrats are of a mind to say to Joe: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant, but, go, man, go!”

Moreover, the longer Biden delays an announcement that he is not running again in 2024, the more he will appear to have been pushed out when he does make it, as he will. Why? Because his competitors and rivals, not to let someone else steal a march on them, are going to begin behaving as what they are: contenders for Joe’s job, whether he runs or not.

Image: President of the United States Joe Biden (Gage Skidmore / via Flickr Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0)

Comments (14)

Woe to us all if a gifted, clever, energetic, charismatic and sufficiently pragmatic anti-Christ leader – a la Lincoln or FDR — emerges now from the ranks of the Left.

On the Right, virtue and morale among the rank and file is slight and shallow, while its leadership — including Trump, Abbott and DeSantis — is too compromising and timid. On the Right, we have, at present, no compelling program and no real Fuhrer. If Trump were that leader, he would be thundering away at Usurper Joe 24/7, far more than he has, risking arrest and prosecution, et cetera. More importantly, he would be critiquing or pounding Biden and the libs on a deeper and more philosophical level. Less about economics, and more about morals.

Trump should be on Biden like white on rice – mocking, goading, and relentlessly pounding ILLEGITIMATE JOE AND HIS IDIOT AND EVIL MINIONS. If Trump had more learning – more historical understanding and philosophical depth — he could be all over Biden on the insane U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. But Trump, alas, is just a businessman; albeit one with good sense. Consequently, in the last 18 months, many opportunities to hit and drive the Left – like Jackson driving Hooker at Chancellorsville — have been missed.

It is a sad day indeed when conservatives depend more on the dotage and internal divisions of our enemies for solace and relief than on any virtue or strength of our own.

And notice how the chatter about Biden’s age and obvious mental infirmity as a disqualifier for office began among the deplorables on and before Day 1 of the usurpatory administration, while libs studiously avoided and denied the elephant in the room – UNTIL AFTER THE OVERTURNING OF ROE. Now, again, the natural restlessness and impatience of abstract liberalism is asserting itself – WHEN A RISK OF LOSING POWER IN A COMING ELECTION LOOMS AS A POSSIBILITY.

The liberal road to evermore personal perversion and social dysfunction and misgovernance and Godlessness is long; but our liberals are in a hurry, and evidently, a fresh horse is now needed to carry us all down the next leg of the false-philosophical relay race toward Hell on earth.

But, if enough Americans have a real interest in being truly free and good, leaders will have to emerge from our current societal disaster. And if and when they do, they will need to draw on the IDEAS and moral EXAMPLES of great Americans of the past — and especially, from great Southern statesmen. In that way, and in others, the South and its Confederacy of old will be vindicated.

July 12, 2022 Winston McCuen Reply
To Winston:
Why should southern statesmen be an especially great example? The south’s loss to the north was largely due to the fact that they went bankrupt toward the end of the war. No, we should look to good, Christian Americans no matter whence they come. Morality doesn’t depend upon someone’s heritage or homeland, it depends on how seriously they take Scripture.

http://beingreasonable.com/

July 13, 2022 Diet Woke Reply
Biden may be braindead, but at least he has enough functioning brain cells to admit that he is not the real president.

July 14, 2022 tempus Reply
TO DIET WOKE:

Fleeting and ephemeral earthly success, in war or anything else, is not the way a true Christian reckons value. The divine author of Ecclesiastes calls such things “vanity.” The South’s losing the war of the 1860s is in no way an argument against following the tradition, wisdom and insight of her statesmen. Properly understood, that war was merely one battle among others in a general Providential war between good and evil that will end in Southern vindication on Judgment Day.

In my earlier comment, I gave preference to Southern statesmen because, on the whole, they went much further in developing the Western classical-republican tradition of constitutional government and well-ordered society. Constitutional government, and sound theorizing about it, is based on an open and clear acknowledgement that HUMAN NATURE IS FALLEN, and therefore needs hemming in. Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions. Madison in the Virginia Resolutions. John Randolph of Roanoke in his many scintillating and brilliant speeches against democratic absolutism, or “King Numbers.” John Taylor of Caroline in his agrarian writings. And George Mason, George McDuffie, Robert Hayne, James Henry Hammond, AND MANY OTHERS contributed to the ongoing (largely) Southern discussions of nullification, interposition, secession and ordered liberty.

Then you have the philosophical and theological powerhouses of the South. John C. Calhoun, who — properly understood and appreciated — is not only America’s greatest statesman, but also ranks among the very best of the great political philosophers of the West, which include of course foundational giants like Plato, Aristotle and Cicero. To the amazement of his peers in the Senate, Calhoun, to illuminate current issues, habitually plumbed the depths of moral and political causation with his powerful metaphysical reasoning. Then there is the brilliant and infinitely under-appreciated social philosopher George Fitzhugh, who staked out the Christian (“Love your neighbor as yourself”) social alternative to both atheist Marxist communism and atheist laissez-faire capitalism. Then we have two men who are arguably the greatest theologians America has produced: James Henley Thornwell and Robert Lewis Dabney. Thornwell and Dabney brilliantly opposed the atheist “rationalist” barbarism that is still sweeping over us today.

My claim is not, OF COURSE, that among Americans, Southerners have now or had before a monopoly on either genuine Christian faith or political wisdom. My claim here is that Southerners of this period, as a culture, had more insight into human nature, good society and good government PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY DID TAKE SCRIPTURE (THE TRIUNE GOD’S WRITTEN WORD) MORE SERIOUSLY. And you should note, that even in our present diluted and battered down condition, we of the South, to this day, are mocked and vilified by God’s demonic enemies for our comparative SERIOUSNESS ABOUT SCRIPTURE.

In the coming battles with World Marxism, we should arm ourselves with Scripture, rightly understood, and with the insights and examples and SYMBOLS of the world’s most truly Christian cultures and traditions. And note, sir, that the Confederate Battleflag, with its St. Andrew’s Cross, IS AN EXPRESSLY CHRISTIAN SYMBOL, whereas the Stars and Stripes, whatever its (largely) former glory, IS NOT.

July 14, 2022 Winston McCuen Reply
TO DIET WOKE:

One further point.

In Christian circles these days, we often hear rather stale and dull and reflexive pro forma prayers lifted up for the repentance and conversion of our political leaders. Now certainly, praying for our leaders is all fine and well and as it should be. BUT, as I have often observed, many of those praying wrongly assume, as their conversation betrays, that personal faith itself is sufficient to right the ship of state. IT IS NOT.

Christian faith, on the one hand, and qualification and competence in the art and science of statesmanship, on the other hand, are two very different things. The former is a free gift of God’s grace. The latter is an art, science and skill acquired by long and hard study and experience of those fundamental causes and effects relating to human nature and society.

So Christian faith, by itself, does not and cannot qualify one for political office, or to vote, or even to be a free man in civil society. And certainly, since Christianity is the one and only true religion, it is better, everything else being equal, for a leader or voter or slave to be a Christian rather than not.

But since Christian faith, by itself, is far from being a sufficient condition or sufficient qualification for political office, what is needed is AN INHERITED, EVOLVING TRADITION OF POLITICAL PRACTICE AND WISDOM, CONSTANTLY INFUSED AND INFORMED BY SCRIPTURE, in which emerging leaders in successive generations can be schooled and prepared for leadership roles.

July 14, 2022 Winston McCuen Reply
To Winston:
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, and thanks for the information; I did learn some new things. First off, I agree with what you said about arming ourselves with Scripture. Especially in the coming times when Christians will be persecuted like no other religious people (or people of faith). When there comes a time when on a global scale, governments have absolute control, only God can save us then.

Secondly, yes, Christianity certainly does not define an American citizen. It is, however (as I know you touched on), essential to being a true American citizen. It is a necessary but not sufficient* part to becoming an American citizen—or, at least, a true American citizen from Old America. Because, as we know, the Founding Fathers never said that whatever religion you choose can be practiced in America, despite all the leftists who like to say so. They made it pretty clear that Christianity had to remain the one and only religion/faith in America. If you weren’t Christian, the Founding Fathers DID NOT want you here. A Muslim and a Christian living in the same house will only generate contention, never peace. We can’t co-exist. Christians stand for everything that is against what the Muslims promote, and we know that the Muslims are a violent, crass people, as is every other religion aside from Christianity. If Muslims had it their way, every Christian in America would be beheaded.

Thirdly, when I said we shouldn’t look to southern statesmen as an example, I wasn’t even JUST speaking from a moral point of view. I was also speaking of success. We need successful and moral statesmen. And the southern statesmen were not successful. As I said before, they lost the civil war. If they really were the best of the best statesmen, the north would’ve lost. The proof is in the pudding: the south didn’t have a secure civilization. The north did. And that’s because northern statesmen (among other things the north was better at) were more successful, thus a better example.

*I say “necessary but not sufficient” here, because it’s something that is needed, but of course won’t turn you into a good American citizen or politician. So, Christianity is one thing needed to becoming a good American citizen, but it’s not the only thing. That’s basically what I meant, in case you were confused on my usage of “necessary but not sufficient.”

http://beingreasonable.com/

July 18, 2022 Diet Woke Reply
TO DIET WOKE:

Good to hear back from you.

We – you and I — have a point of agreement here, since, in the struggles between nations, I am not one of those who TOTALLY discounts the value of earthly success. But the causes of victory or defeat in war are typically complicated, and include both the relative MORAL and PHYSICAL powers and the circumstances of the dueling nations respectively. (Calhoun, a SOUTHERN statesman, makes this point beautifully in his Disquisition.)

Still, your present argument FOR and over-valorization OF earthly success, resembles too much the “might makes right” argument of the “wolf” Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. And recall that Plato had Socrates conclusively refute Thrasymachus.

I believe that, at present, you attach far too much import and significance to earthly success. You seem impatient to establish heaven on this fallen earth – a dead-end proposition that is contrary to God’s express Providential plan. So ultimately, merely human success – and failure — in this earthly life, in this fallen world, is necessarily partial, transitory and fleeting.

Christ allowed Himself to be put on the Cross, an earthly “defeat” at the hands of the Romans and the Pharisees and Satan. And since His followers (slaves) are not greater than their Master (Christ), according to His best of all possible plans, they will and should suffer, on occasion, earthly defeat too, for their own good and for the fulfillment of His plan.

God sometimes permits evil, or a relatively wicked cause (like Lincoln’s), to succeed or prevail for a time, just as He allows death and many other evils, for the sake of a higher Providential good and His glory. The bloody, murderous Mongols PREVAILED on the steppes of Russia for generations. That is not proof, of itself, of either their moral superiority or of any superior genius of political organization.

W.J. Cash, in The Mind of the South, argues rather convincingly that a defeated South became even MORE SOUTHERN, in the same way that other peoples – like the Irish and the Poles and the Swiss, fighting but losing for morally superior and noble causes, have become more Irish and Polish and Swiss respectively. So the war in some sense helped to forge the Southern mind, at the center of which is its greater commitment to true Christianity. After all, earthly success, as compared to the purifying fires of suffering in defeat, can and does often further corrupt sinful human nature and whole nations.

July 19, 2022 Winston McCuen Reply
TO DIET WOKE:

One further point.

The United States is a prime example of a nation further corrupted — CORRUPTED NOW TO THE POINT OF RAGING IMMORALITY AND POLITICAL DISINTEGRATION — by EARTHLY POWER AND MILITARY SUCCESS.

July 19, 2022 Winston McCuen Reply
To Winston:
“The United States is a prime example of a nation further corrupted — CORRUPTED NOW TO THE POINT OF RAGING IMMORALITY AND POLITICAL DISINTEGRATION — by EARTHLY POWER AND MILITARY SUCCESS.”
I agree with you here, and I personally think America is too far gone to go back to how it was in the 19th and 18th centuries. But unfortunately, we’ve seen in the Bible and historically, that each successful civilization usually only lasts for four hundred years or so. The people get fat off their luxuries and success, and forget about God. Which is why Jesus said “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven.” Then, the people get self-righteous (“becoming fools and thinking they were wise, they worshipped the creation rather than the creator”) as we’ve seen in America with the environmentalists, BLMers, Ukraine “supporters” who do nothing to actually help Ukraine, etc. What need do Americans have to worship God (in their eyes)? That’s why it’s easier for someone, say, in Asia, who’s living in poverty not knowing when the next meal comes, to be a devoted Christian. Because they have the need of a God who can be their only hope and comfort when they have no idea if they’ll even be alive tomorrow. They need to rely on someone more powerful than themselves to bring them through their troubles. But here in America, we live in the lap of luxury, thus making it harder for us to see why we need God.

“Still, your present argument FOR and over-valorization OF earthly success, resembles too much the “might makes right” argument of the “wolf” Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. And recall that Plato had Socrates conclusively refute Thrasymachus.”
No, I was still focusing on what you said about southern statesmen being a good example. And I already said that morality played a big part, of course, but we can’t completely disregard earthly success. I was saying that, by an earthly view (and moral view in some areas), the southern statesmen were not great examples. But I never just focused on earthly power. I was merely stating that it was an important point to keep in mind that the Confederacy lost the Civil War because they were not as successful in keeping an orderly civilization as the Yankees. Earthly success comes into play after morality, and they are both very important. And (as we see with America), people who follow God properly and according to his Word will come out on top*. Now, both the Confederacy and the Yankees were part of America, so we can’t judge which one was right with God just simply by who won and who lost (especially since people right with God often are the abused party, especially as individuals) in that situation, but I’m speaking of America as a whole, when it first became a nation. Christians founded it, and it became the most successful nation ever. The Civil War certainly was an act of aggression by the Yankees (especially since the southern states were planning on freeing slaves in a short amount of time anyway), but the south too were a proud and aggressive people and deserve just as much, if not more of the blame for the Civil War eventually occurring. God makes right, might does not.

“I believe that, at present, you attach far too much import and significance to earthly success. You seem impatient to establish heaven on this fallen earth – a dead-end proposition that is contrary to God’s express Providential plan. So ultimately, merely human success – and failure — in this earthly life, in this fallen world, is necessarily partial, transitory and fleeting.”
I don’t, because I believe that any earthly pursuit must be pursued with a proper understanding of who God is and what his Logos (Word) says. Of course, knowing God is the first step toward earthly success. America is the most successful civilization known to the world, and it was founded by Christians. That’s no coincidence. For another example, Isaac Newton is widely considered to be the greatest scientist who ever lived. I’ve read a full biography on him, and read other things about his earthly accomplishments. It’s suppressed today, but he was a devoted Christian. He’s one of the most successful earthly beings, but I don’t focus just on that earthly success. I praise God for the fact that he was a Christian, and through those beliefs, was able to accomplish great things. Both facts (him being a Christian, him accomplishing great earthly things) have great importance. The former having more, of course, but God wants us as his creatures to accomplish things while we’re down here waiting for Christ to come back.

*Because, eventually, whether the next day or when He comes back, God will have his vengeance and His people will be rewarded.

http://beingreasonable.com/

July 20, 2022 Diet Woke Reply
To Winston:
Something else to add is that even with Roe v Wade being overturned, I still believe America is hopelessly sliding into the abyss. Some people still see hope for America, especially after Roe v Wade—and I rejoice at Roe being overruled—but that was just one step of thousands of others that need to be taken. And those thousands of other steps the vast majority of Americans aren’t willing to take. I don’t know what your views on America ever turning back are, but I think evil is just too strong here in America for us to ever go back.

http://beingreasonable.com/

July 20, 2022 Diet Woke Reply
TO DIET WOKE:

I am grateful for your replies.

I completely agree that the evil here in America now is too great to be peacefully reformed out. Our people and our institutions are too degraded. (Calhoun, again, has a brilliant speech about this in his Disquisition.) Somewhere, years back, we modern Americans crossed the moral Rubicon, so that NOW only direct Divine intervention could turn things around, with our present political forms surviving.

We can respectfully disagree about who, South or North, had the more orderly society. Calhoun, in several speeches, argued that the two very different social experiments being conducted South and North were showing in clear favor of a far more stable and internally harmonious South. Northern cities especially were becoming increasingly disorderly and violent. Class divisions in the “free (to starve) labor” North were widening, while New England mills saw whites, including the very young of both sexes, working long, grueling hours in wretched conditions like their miserable peers in perhaps equally hypocritical “abolitionist” Dickensonian English and French mines and mills. George Fitzhugh has logged this very real exploitation and abuse thoroughly.

I agree with you, of course, that Southerners were not always paragons of virtue. Calhoun warned his fellow Southerners, as early as the 1830s, about a spirit of avarice diverting them from vigilance and self-sacrifice sufficient to ensure their continued liberty. During the war, Lee echoed Calhoun’s concerns, stating over and over that Confederate victory – against very long manpower and material odds — would require more Southerners being more selfless.

Overwhelming numbers and materiel — not superior social order or generalship or soldiery — defeated the South. Skeptics of this truth should ask themselves: How would Grant have fared against Lee if food and equipment and numbers had been on Lee’s side? How long would Sherman or Sheridan have lasted against Jackson or Forrest manned and accoutered thus? Only a fool could doubt the swift and inevitable outcomes.

Finally, I am not aware of Southerners, in organized armies, being overly aggressive. Lincoln precipitated the war by unconstitutionally refusing to evacuate “federal” troops from Ft. Sumter promptly after South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. Davis and the South were extremely patient and forbearing. Beauregard, on Davis’ order, did not fire on Sumter until April 12, 1861; after Lincoln had sent ships to resupply the fort, rather than evacuate it.

During the war, Southern commanders and soldiers, with very few exceptions, studiously refrained from aggression against the persons or property of civilians of the North. On the other hand, the outrageous barbarisms of the North’s total war against the civilian population of the South are very numerous and well documented. General Custer’s wife, for example, gave her husband, departing for Virginia, a “shopping list” of fine things she would like to have from Southern households. In 1876, on the plains of Montana, Crazy Horse and his merry band of Sioux and Cheyenne, by the Lord’s divine plan, gave Custer’s Yankee rapacity pointed down payments toward final recompense.

July 20, 2022 Winston McCuen Reply
To Winston:
Good morning.

In late- and mid-19th century, there were people being overworked and abused all over America, and even in Europe. It wasn’t just in the north. Children were working in mills getting their limbs dismembered because of these powerful machines, but the employers didn’t care because they just viewed the workers as slaves. It happened in London, it happened here. That’s exactly why Eleanor Roosevelt fought so ferociously against it (unfortunately, she didn’t do it the right way).

Also, just like in Indian wars before the Civil War, both peoples involved in the Civil War committed war crimes. Each side had honorable commanders, and each side had repulsive commanders. It really and truly did depend upon the heart of each human, and whether they wanted to be as hateful as possible to their fellow Americans, enemy thought they may be. You even said that Lee urged southerners to be more selfless. There were people in the north who needed to not be so selfish. It’s not so black-and-white, as with any war. There are nuances, and I believe both the north and south were in the wrong for fighting each other. They could’ve come to terms without starting a war, and the south even did compromise by pledging to end slavery within the next twenty years I think it was.

All this being said, I do think the Civil War was an act of aggression. That’s pretty clear. But, unfortunately, in a fallen world, these things happen. It doesn’t make it right, but it’s just like with the War on Ukraine today: people all over the globe are up in arms about Russia’s invasion. But I ask those people who are up in arms, “did you really think it wasn’t going to happen?” It was so clear for so long that Putin wanted to take back his land. And morality aside, these things happen in a fallen world. Wars occur. Just look at history. The Roman Empire did it, the Egyptian Empire did it, the Israelites did it, and so on. That’s why we as Christians long even more for Christ to come.

http://beingreasonable.com/

July 21, 2022 Diet Woke Reply
(1) In 1901, my great grandfather, then in his late twenties, was killed in an accident at a cotton mill near Atlanta, where he was supervisor. He got caught up in a large machine belt that had come loose and was dashed off the ceiling of the plant. His son, my grandfather, used to talk about how they brought what was left of “papa” home in a wheelbarrow. I have myself worked in the trades and in industry for over 25 years and have been injured more than once. I know a bit about industrial dangers and callous employers.

If industrial workers were actual slaves, on the Old-South Christian pattern, they would be treated better than as “free” labor, since slaveholders naturally don’t like their property being damaged. George Fitzhugh is best at making this point.

(2) Equating the South with the North, as regards either war crimes or aggressiveness, is ahistorical and absurd. All the historical evidence points the other way.

(3) The Confederate Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, nowhere gave the general government of that union, or any officials therein, the constitutional authority to abolish or otherwise do away with slavery in the confederated states. That authority resided solely in each of the confederated states respectively.

The South tried many, many times to reason with the North and to prevent armed conflict.
Before his death in 1850, Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina proposed an amendment of the Constitution to create a dual executive, or two presidents, one elected by the North and one by the South, with mutual veto powers.

This was his brilliant attempt to update the Constitution to fit the vast growth of the country in territory, population and wealth since 1789. BUT, THE NORTH, WANTING A CLEAR EXPLOITATIVE ADVANTAGE AND SUPREMACY IN POWER WITHIN THE UNION AND OVER THE HATED SOUTH, REJECTED THIS PROPOSAL. (More recently, inspired by Calhoun, this author has proposed a dual executive, one elected by blue states and one by red, to reconcile our enormous current divisions. I expect though that the blue states, being so rabidly ideologically driven, would not hear of sharing power with “unwashed” deplorables.)

(4) The American war in the 1860s was not a “civil war.” The South did not aim to seize power in Washington and impose its governing will on the North; any more than patriots in the Revolution aimed to conquer London and govern the British homeland and empire. Calling it a civil war is simply wrong, from a political-philosophical standpoint. It was a war of secession, a war for Southern Independence. The ratifying states had voluntarily joined the union, and it was widely understood and recognized, for most of the period from 1789 – 1860, South and North, that any state had the right to secede, for any reason it wished to give or not give. General ignorance combined with self-serving Yankee propaganda has affixed the label “Civil War” to that conflict, part of an on-going effort (active to this day) to cover Yankee malice and aggression toward the South, and toward decentralist, freedom-loving Americans in general.

July 25, 2022 Winston McCuen Reply
To Winston:
Once again, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I was on vacation for the past two and a half weeks.

I thank you again for the information provided, and I’m sorry to hear that about your great grandfather. Things certainly were horrific in that time. Human life just wasn’t valued as much as it should be.

On what you said concerning the name of the Civil War…the American Civil War can easily be called that, by this definition of “civil”: (NOED)
• (of disorder or conflict) occurring between citizens of the same country
They were of the same country, and they were fighting each other. It was a civil (above definition) war.

http://beingreasonable.com/

July 30, 2022 Diet Woke Reply

Cancel Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Leave a Reply

Cancel Reply