theamericanconservative--2020-07-07--Where was Biden when Trump was standing up for America on July 4?

Where was Biden when Trump was standing up for America on July 4 ?
In his Mount Rushmore speech , the president called out his opponent 's silence in the face of an onslaught against history .
Speaking at Mount Rushmore on Friday , and from the White House lawn on Saturday , July 4 , Donald Trump recast the presidential race .
He seized upon an issue that can turn his fortunes around , and the wounded howls of the media testify to the power of his message .
Standing beneath the mammoth carved images of Presidents Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump declared : “ Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders , deface our most sacred memorials , and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.
” These mobs are made up of Marxists , criminals and anarchists .
Their cause is a cultural revolution .
“ Their goal is not a better America .
Their goal is the end of America.
” After reciting the achievements of his four predecessors , Trump added : “ No movement that seeks to dismantle these treasured American legacies can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its heart.
” Then he put it right into the basement hideaway of Joe Biden : “ No person who remains quiet at the destruction of this resplendent heritage can possibly lead us to a better future.
” Trump is calling out Biden ’ s silence in the face of an onslaught against our heroes and history as manifest political cowardice that makes Biden a moral accomplice of the mobs .
One day , Basement Boy is going to have to speak out .
Where was Biden when Trump was standing up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party tweeted that Trump ’ s trip to Mount Rushmore was aimed at “ glorifying white supremacy , ” Biden was wailing about the need “ to rip the roots of systemic racism ” out of America .
Does that sound like Harry Truman or JFK ?
So the lines are drawn for 2020 .
On one side are those who believe America is a good country , the greatest the world has ever seen , and that the men who created this miracle should be respected , revered and remembered .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing of the Democratic Party .
For even as the fireworks were exploding on the Mall , a Baltimore mob was tearing down , smashing up and dumping into the Inner Harbor a landmark statue of Christopher Columbus .
That statue stood next to the Baltimore neighborhood of Little Italy and had been dedicated in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan .
Do the haters of Columbus think that destroying Columbus ’ statues across America will not anger and alienate Americans of Italian descent who revere the explorer ?
Does Biden think Italian-Americans will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not renounce the mob that did this ?
As the left wing of the Democratic Party embraces the “ defund the police ” movement , how long will it hold onto voters who are today watching murder rates climb to new records ?
During Independence Day weekend in Chicago , 80 people were shot , and 17 of them killed .
In New York City , the number of shooting victims has risen this year by 50 percent .
In June , there were 250 shootings , an increase of 150 over June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response : cutting $ 1 billion from the NYPD budget .
Over July 4 , an armed Black militia arrived at the reopening of the Stone Mountain monument in Georgia , which features huge carved images of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson .
They want its destruction .
Trump is charged with “ dividing the nation.
” But it is not Trump trashing cops or providing cover for “ protests ” marked by looting and arson .
Nor is it Trump tearing down memorials and monuments to the great Americans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a portrait in indecisiveness , Trump has been clear .
He stands with the cops who have gone through a hellish six weeks .
He stands against defacing statues and destroying monuments .
He has denounced the rioting , looting and arson that have accompanied protests the media never cease to describe as “ peaceful.
” It is not Trump who is dividing America .
He has pledged to resist the rampages with all the weapons in his presidential arsenal .
There are four months until November ’ s election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want to continue an era of protests that revert to rioting , looting and arson ?
Do we want to see police departments further constricted and trashed as neo-fascist ?
Do we wish to see statues of presidents from Washington , Jefferson , Jackson , Lincoln and Grant to Teddy Roosevelt trashed by mobs that hate America , hate her heroes and hate her history ?
Trump ’ s stand for tradition and against mob rule is the only stand the president can take .
And it is a necessary stand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ last long after this presidency .
And it is going to determine what kind of country we shall become .
Will it be the great and glorious republic of the past or the social and cultural Marxist hellhole that is the promise of the mobs ?
Trump just played the patriotism card , the correct card to play , and it may just work for his reelection .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided @ @ @ @

Speaking at Mount Rushmore on Friday, and from the White House lawn on Saturday, July 4, Donald Trump recast the presidential race.
He seized upon an issue that can turn his fortunes around, and the wounded howls of the media testify to the power of his message.
Standing beneath the mammoth carved images of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, Trump declared: “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials, and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.”
These mobs are made up of Marxists, criminals and anarchists. Their cause is a cultural revolution. “Their goal is not a better America. Their goal is the end of America.”
After reciting the achievements of his four predecessors, Trump added: “No movement that seeks to dismantle these treasured American legacies can possibly have a love of America at its heart.”
Then he put it right into the basement hideaway of Joe Biden: “No person who remains quiet at the destruction of this resplendent heritage can possibly lead us to a better future.”
Trump is calling out Biden’s silence in the face of an onslaught against our heroes and history as manifest political cowardice that makes Biden a moral accomplice of the mobs.
One day, Basement Boy is going to have to speak out.
Where was Biden when Trump was standing up for America on Independence Day?
As his Party tweeted that Trump’s trip to Mount Rushmore was aimed at “glorifying white supremacy,” Biden was wailing about the need “to rip the roots of systemic racism” out of America.
Does that sound like Harry Truman or JFK?
So the lines are drawn for 2020.
On one side are those who believe America is a good country, the greatest the world has ever seen, and that the men who created this miracle should be respected, revered and remembered.
That is not the view of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
For even as the fireworks were exploding on the Mall, a Baltimore mob was tearing down, smashing up and dumping into the Inner Harbor a landmark statue of Christopher Columbus.
That statue stood next to the Baltimore neighborhood of Little Italy and had been dedicated in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan.
Do the haters of Columbus think that destroying Columbus’ statues across America will not anger and alienate Americans of Italian descent who revere the explorer? Does Biden think Italian-Americans will reward a candidate and party that will not renounce the mob that did this?
As the left wing of the Democratic Party embraces the “defund the police” movement, how long will it hold onto voters who are today watching murder rates climb to new records?
During Independence Day weekend in Chicago, 80 people were shot, and 17 of them killed.
In New York City, the number of shooting victims has risen this year by 50 percent. In June, there were 250 shootings, an increase of 150 over June 2019. Mayor Bill de Blasio’s response: cutting $1 billion from the NYPD budget.
Over July 4, an armed Black militia arrived at the reopening of the Stone Mountain monument in Georgia, which features huge carved images of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. They want its destruction.
Trump is charged with “dividing the nation.”
But it is not Trump trashing cops or providing cover for “protests” marked by looting and arson. Nor is it Trump tearing down memorials and monuments to the great Americans of the past.
Where the Democratic Party has been a portrait in indecisiveness, Trump has been clear. He stands with the cops who have gone through a hellish six weeks. He stands against defacing statues and destroying monuments. He has denounced the rioting, looting and arson that have accompanied protests the media never cease to describe as “peaceful.”
It is not Trump who is dividing America. He has pledged to resist the rampages with all the weapons in his presidential arsenal.
There are four months until November’s election, 18 weeks until America decides: Do we want to continue an era of protests that revert to rioting, looting and arson? Do we want to see police departments further constricted and trashed as neo-fascist?
Do we wish to see statues of presidents from Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant to Teddy Roosevelt trashed by mobs that hate America, hate her heroes and hate her history?
Trump’s stand for tradition and against mob rule is the only stand the president can take. And it is a necessary stand. For this culture war is going to last long after this presidency. And it is going to determine what kind of country we shall become.
Will it be the great and glorious republic of the past or the social and cultural Marxist hellhole that is the promise of the mobs?
Trump just played the patriotism card, the correct card to play, and it may just work for his reelection.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”


theamericanconservative--2020-07-07--Remember the Red Guards Before You Cheer the Woke Mobs

Chinese red guards during the cultural revolution in China 1966 .
( Photo by : Photo12/Universal Images Group via Getty Images ) I ’ m ambivalent about statues and J.K. Rowling being torn down , but terrified of the thought process behind the destruction .
Decisions should never be made by mobs .
Is America on the edge of a cultural revolution ?
The historical namesake and obvious parallel is the Cultural Revolution in China , which lasted from 1966 to 1976 .
Its stated goal was to purge capitalist and traditional elements from society , and to substitute a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own beliefs .
The epic struggle for control and power waged war against anybody on the wrong side of an idea .
To set the mobs on somebody , one needed only to tie him to an official blacklist like the Four Olds ( old customs , culture , habits , and ideas ) .
China ’ s young people and urban workers formed Red Guard units to go after whomever was outed .
Violence ?
Yes , please .
When Mao launched the movement in May 1966 , he told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and made clear that “ to rebel is justified.
” He said “ revisionists should be removed through violent class struggle.
” The old thinkers were everywhere and were systematically trying to preserve their power and subjugate the people .
Whetted , the mobs took the task to heart : Red Guards destroyed historical relics , statues , and artifacts , and ransacked cultural and religious sites .
Libraries were burned .
Religion was considered a tool of capitalists and so churches were destroyed—even the Temple of Confucius was wrecked .
Eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ killing people who did not think as they did .
Where were the police ?
The cops were told not to intervene in Red Guard activities , and if they did , the national police chief pardoned the Guards for any crimes .
Education was singled out , as it was the way the old values were preserved and transmitted .
Teachers , particularly those at universities , were considered the “ Stinking Old Ninth ” and were widely persecuted .
The lucky ones just suffered the public humiliation of shaved heads , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slaughtered or harassed into suicide .
Schools and universities eventually closed down and over 10 million former students were sent to the countryside to labor under the Down to the Countryside Movement .
A lost generation was abandoned to fester , uneducated .
Red Guard pogroms eventually came to include the cannibalization of revisionists .
After all , as Mao said , a revolution is not a dinner party .
The Cultural Revolution destroyed China ’ s economy and traditional culture , leaving behind a possible death toll ranging from one to 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a war on the way people think .
And it failed .
One immediate consequence of the Revolution ’ s failure was the rise in power of the military after regular people decided they ’ d had enough and wanted order restored .
China then became even more of a capitalist society than it had ever imagined in pre-Revolution days .
Oh well .
I spoke with an elderly Chinese academic who had been forced from her classroom and made to sleep outside with the animals during the Revolution .
She recalled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guess at her crimes , as she ’ d done nothing more than teach literature , a kind of systematic revisionism in that it espoused beliefs her tormentors thought contributed to the rotten society .
She also had to write out long apologies for being who she was .
She was personally held responsible for 4,000 years of oppression of the masses .
Our meeting was last year , before white guilt became a whole category on Netflix , but I wonder if she ’ d see now how similar it all is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version of events than a column like this would usually feature .
A tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust in terms of human lives , an attempt to destroy culture on a level that would embarrass the Taliban—this topic is not widely taught in American colleges , never mind in China .
It should be taught , because history rhymes .
Chinese students are again outing teachers , sometimes via cellphone videos , for “ improper speech , ” teaching hurtful things from the past using the wrong vocabulary .
Other Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positions , or lose their jobs for teaching novels with the wrong values .
Once abhorred as anti-free speech , most UC Berkeley students would likely now agree that such steps are proper .
In Minnesota , To Kill A Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are banned because fictional characters use a racial slur .
There are no statues to the Cultural Revolution here or in China .
Nobody builds monuments to chaos .
But it ’ s never really about the statues anyway .
In America , we moved quickly from demands to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lee to Thomas Jefferson to basically any Caucasian , including “ White Jesus.
“ Of course , it was never going to stop with Confederate generals because it was not really about racism any more than the Cultural Revolution was really about capitalism .
This is about rewriting history for political ends , both short-term power grabs ( Not Trump 2020 ! )
and longer term societal changes that one critic calls the “ successor ideology , ” the melange of academic radicalism now seeking hegemony throughout American institutions .
Douglas Murray is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to embed a new metaphysics into our societies : a new religion.
” The ideas—centered on there being only one accepted way of thought—are a tool of control .
It remains to be seen where America goes next in its own nascent cultural revolution .
Like slow dancing in eighth grade , maybe nothing will come of it .
These early stages , where the victims are Uncle Ben , Aunt Jemima , someone losing her temper while walking a dog in Central Park , and canceled celebrities , are a far cry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals in China .
Much of what appears revolutionary is just Internet pranking and common looting amplified by an agendaized media .
One writer sees “ cancel culture as a game , the point of which is to impose unemployment on people as a form of recreation.
” B-list celebs and Karens in the parking lot are easy enough targets .
Ask the Red Guards : it ’ s fun to break things .
Still , the intellectual roots of our revolution and China ’ s seem similar : the hate of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be disappeared in the name of social progress , intolerance toward dissent , violence to enforce conformity .
In America these are spreading outward from our universities so that everywhere today—movies , TV , publishing , news , ads , sports—is an Oberlin where in the name of free speech “ hate speech ” is banned , and in the name of safety dangerous ideas and the people who hold them are not only not discussed but canceled , shot down via the projectile of the heckler ’ s veto , unfriended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demeaned , chased after by mobs both real and online in a horrible blend of self-righteousness and cyber bullying .
They don ’ t believe in a marketplace of ideas .
Ideas to the mob are either right or wrong and the “ wrong ” ones must be banished .
The choices to survive the mobs are conformity or silence .
In China , you showed conformity by carrying around Mao ’ s Little Red Book .
In America , you wear a soiled surgical mask to the supermarket .
The philosophical spadework @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Switch the terms capitalism and revisionism with racism and white supremacy in some of Mao ’ s speeches and you have a decent speech draft for a Black Lives Matter rally .
Actually , you can keep Mao ’ s references to destroying capitalism , as they track pretty closely with progressive thought in 2020 America .
History is not there to make anyone feel safe or justify current theories about policing .
History exists so we can learn from it , and for us to learn from it , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be offended and uncomfortable with it , to bathe in it , to taste it bitter or sweet .
When you wash your hands of an idea , you lose all the other ideas that grew to challenge it .
Think of those as antibodies fighting a disease .
What happens when they are no longer at the ready ?
What happens when a body forgets how to fight an illness ?
What happens when a society forgets how to challenge a bad idea with a better one ?
Peter Van @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People , Hooper ’ s War : A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad : A Story of the # 99 Percent .

I’m ambivalent about statues and J.K. Rowling being torn down, but terrified of the thought process behind the destruction. Decisions should never be made by mobs.
Is America on the edge of a cultural revolution?
The historical namesake and obvious parallel is the Cultural Revolution in China, which lasted from 1966 to 1976. Its stated goal was to purge capitalist and traditional elements from society, and to substitute a new way of thinking based on Mao’s own beliefs. The epic struggle for control and power waged war against anybody on the wrong side of an idea.
To set the mobs on somebody, one needed only to tie him to an official blacklist like the Four Olds (old customs, culture, habits, and ideas). China’s young people and urban workers formed Red Guard units to go after whomever was outed. Violence? Yes, please. When Mao launched the movement in May 1966, he told his mobs to “bombard the headquarters” and made clear that “to rebel is justified.” He said “revisionists should be removed through violent class struggle.” The old thinkers were everywhere and were systematically trying to preserve their power and subjugate the people.
Whetted, the mobs took the task to heart: Red Guards destroyed historical relics, statues, and artifacts, and ransacked cultural and religious sites. Libraries were burned. Religion was considered a tool of capitalists and so churches were destroyed—even the Temple of Confucius was wrecked. Eventually the Red Guards moved on to openly killing people who did not think as they did. Where were the police? The cops were told not to intervene in Red Guard activities, and if they did, the national police chief pardoned the Guards for any crimes.
Education was singled out, as it was the way the old values were preserved and transmitted. Teachers, particularly those at universities, were considered the “Stinking Old Ninth” and were widely persecuted. The lucky ones just suffered the public humiliation of shaved heads, while others were tortured. Many were slaughtered or harassed into suicide. Schools and universities eventually closed down and over 10 million former students were sent to the countryside to labor under the Down to the Countryside Movement. A lost generation was abandoned to fester, uneducated. Red Guard pogroms eventually came to include the cannibalization of revisionists. After all, as Mao said, a revolution is not a dinner party.
The Cultural Revolution destroyed China’s economy and traditional culture, leaving behind a possible death toll ranging from one to 20 million. Nobody really knows. It was a war on the way people think. And it failed. One immediate consequence of the Revolution’s failure was the rise in power of the military after regular people decided they’d had enough and wanted order restored. China then became even more of a capitalist society than it had ever imagined in pre-Revolution days. Oh well.
I spoke with an elderly Chinese academic who had been forced from her classroom and made to sleep outside with the animals during the Revolution. She recalled forced self-criticism sessions that required her to guess at her crimes, as she’d done nothing more than teach literature, a kind of systematic revisionism in that it espoused beliefs her tormentors thought contributed to the rotten society. She also had to write out long apologies for being who she was. She was personally held responsible for 4,000 years of oppression of the masses. Our meeting was last year, before white guilt became a whole category on Netflix, but I wonder if she’d see now how similar it all is.
That’s probably a longer version of events than a column like this would usually feature. A tragedy on the scale of the Holocaust in terms of human lives, an attempt to destroy culture on a level that would embarrass the Taliban—this topic is not widely taught in American colleges, never mind in China.
It should be taught, because history rhymes. Chinese students are again outing teachers, sometimes via cellphone videos, for “improper speech,” teaching hurtful things from the past using the wrong vocabulary. Other Chinese intellectuals are harassed online for holding outlier positions, or lose their jobs for teaching novels with the wrong values. Once abhorred as anti-free speech, most UC Berkeley students would likely now agree that such steps are proper. In Minnesota, To Kill A Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn are banned because fictional characters use a racial slur.
There are no statues to the Cultural Revolution here or in China. Nobody builds monuments to chaos. But it’s never really about the statues anyway. In America, we moved quickly from demands to tear down the statues of Robert E. Lee to Thomas Jefferson to basically any Caucasian, including “White Jesus.“
Of course, it was never going to stop with Confederate generals because it was not really about racism any more than the Cultural Revolution was really about capitalism. This is about rewriting history for political ends, both short-term power grabs (Not Trump 2020!) and longer term societal changes that one critic calls the “successor ideology,” the melange of academic radicalism now seeking hegemony throughout American institutions. Douglas Murray is more succinct. The purpose “is to embed a new metaphysics into our societies: a new religion.” The ideas—centered on there being only one accepted way of thought—are a tool of control.
It remains to be seen where America goes next in its own nascent cultural revolution. Like slow dancing in eighth grade, maybe nothing will come of it. These early stages, where the victims are Uncle Ben, Aunt Jemima, someone losing her temper while walking a dog in Central Park, and canceled celebrities, are a far cry from the millions murdered for the same goals in China. Much of what appears revolutionary is just Internet pranking and common looting amplified by an agendaized media. One writer sees “cancel culture as a game, the point of which is to impose unemployment on people as a form of recreation.” B-list celebs and Karens in the parking lot are easy enough targets. Ask the Red Guards: it’s fun to break things.
Still, the intellectual roots of our revolution and China’s seem similar: the hate of the old, the need for unacceptable ideas to be disappeared in the name of social progress, intolerance toward dissent, violence to enforce conformity.
In America these are spreading outward from our universities so that everywhere today—movies, TV, publishing, news, ads, sports—is an Oberlin where in the name of free speech “hate speech” is banned, and in the name of safety dangerous ideas and the people who hold them are not only not discussed but canceled, shot down via the projectile of the heckler’s veto, unfriended, demonetized, deleted, de-platformed, demeaned, chased after by mobs both real and online in a horrible blend of self-righteousness and cyber bullying. They don’t believe in a marketplace of ideas. Ideas to the mob are either right or wrong and the “wrong” ones must be banished. The choices to survive the mobs are conformity or silence. In China, you showed conformity by carrying around Mao’s Little Red Book. In America, you wear a soiled surgical mask to the supermarket.
The philosophical spadework for an American Cultural Revolution is done. Switch the terms capitalism and revisionism with racism and white supremacy in some of Mao’s speeches and you have a decent speech draft for a Black Lives Matter rally. Actually, you can keep Mao’s references to destroying capitalism, as they track pretty closely with progressive thought in 2020 America.
History is not there to make anyone feel safe or justify current theories about policing. History exists so we can learn from it, and for us to learn from it, it has to exist for us to study it, to be offended and uncomfortable with it, to bathe in it, to taste it bitter or sweet. When you wash your hands of an idea, you lose all the other ideas that grew to challenge it. Think of those as antibodies fighting a disease. What happens when they are no longer at the ready? What happens when a body forgets how to fight an illness? What happens when a society forgets how to challenge a bad idea with a better one?
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, Hooper’s War: A Novel of WWII Japan, and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-07--Where Was Biden When Trump Was Standing up for America on July 4?

Where Was Biden When Trump Was Standing up for America on July 4 ?
In his Mount Rushmore speech , the president called out his opponent 's silence in the face of an onslaught against history .
Speaking at Mount Rushmore on Friday , and from the White House lawn on Saturday , July 4 , Donald Trump recast the presidential race .
He seized upon an issue that can turn his fortunes around , and the wounded howls of the media testify to the power of his message .
Standing beneath the mammoth carved images of Presidents Washington , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump declared : “ Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders , deface our most sacred memorials , and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.
” These mobs are made up of Marxists , criminals and anarchists .
Their cause is a cultural revolution .
“ Their goal is not a better America .
Their goal is the end of America.
” After reciting the achievements of his four predecessors , Trump added : “ No movement that seeks to dismantle these treasured American legacies can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its heart.
” Then he put it right into the basement hideaway of Joe Biden : “ No person who remains quiet at the destruction of this resplendent heritage can possibly lead us to a better future.
” Trump is calling out Biden ’ s silence in the face of an onslaught against our heroes and history as manifest political cowardice that makes Biden a moral accomplice of the mobs .
One day , Basement Boy is going to have to speak out .
Where was Biden when Trump was standing up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party tweeted that Trump ’ s trip to Mount Rushmore was aimed at “ glorifying white supremacy , ” Biden was wailing about the need “ to rip the roots of systemic racism ” out of America .
Does that sound like Harry Truman or JFK ?
So the lines are drawn for 2020 .
On one side are those who believe America is a good country , the greatest the world has ever seen , and that the men who created this miracle should be respected , revered and remembered .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wing of the Democratic Party .
For even as the fireworks were exploding on the Mall , a Baltimore mob was tearing down , smashing up and dumping into the Inner Harbor a landmark statue of Christopher Columbus .
That statue stood next to the Baltimore neighborhood of Little Italy and had been dedicated in 1984 by President Ronald Reagan .
Do the haters of Columbus think that destroying Columbus ’ statues across America will not anger and alienate Americans of Italian descent who revere the explorer ?
Does Biden think Italian-Americans will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not renounce the mob that did this ?
As the left wing of the Democratic Party embraces the “ defund the police ” movement , how long will it hold onto voters who are today watching murder rates climb to new records ?
During Independence Day weekend in Chicago , 80 people were shot , and 17 of them killed .
In New York City , the number of shooting victims has risen this year by 50 percent .
In June , there were 250 shootings , an increase of 150 over June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s response : cutting $ 1 billion from the NYPD budget .
Over July 4 , an armed Black militia arrived at the reopening of the Stone Mountain monument in Georgia , which features huge carved images of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson .
They want its destruction .
Trump is charged with “ dividing the nation.
” But it is not Trump trashing cops or providing cover for “ protests ” marked by looting and arson .
Nor is it Trump tearing down memorials and monuments to the great Americans of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a portrait in indecisiveness , Trump has been clear .
He stands with the cops who have gone through a hellish six weeks .
He stands against defacing statues and destroying monuments .
He has denounced the rioting , looting and arson that have accompanied protests the media never cease to describe as “ peaceful.
” It is not Trump who is dividing America .
He has pledged to resist the rampages with all the weapons in his presidential arsenal .
There are four months until November ’ s election , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we want to continue an era of protests that revert to rioting , looting and arson ?
Do we want to see police departments further constricted and trashed as neo-fascist ?
Do we wish to see statues of presidents from Washington , Jefferson , Jackson , Lincoln and Grant to Teddy Roosevelt trashed by mobs that hate America , hate her heroes and hate her history ?
Trump ’ s stand for tradition and against mob rule is the only stand the president can take .
And it is a necessary stand .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ last long after this presidency .
And it is going to determine what kind of country we shall become .
Will it be the great and glorious republic of the past or the social and cultural Marxist hellhole that is the promise of the mobs ?
Trump just played the patriotism card , the correct card to play , and it may just work for his reelection .
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “ Nixon ’ s White House Wars : The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided @ @ @ @


theamericanconservative--2020-07-08--The ‘Moral Clarity’ of the Mob

The ‘Moral Clarity’ of the Mob

Statues at New York Surrogate Court building are seen defaced and painted with graffiti during the protest outside of City Hall .
( Photo by Ron Adar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images ) Things move quickly though not evenly .
Last week , more statues of American and Confederate figures were torn down , another riot broke out in Portland , there were rumblings that Hamilton might be next on the cancel list , and the California state legislature voted to strike anti-discrimination language from its constitution in obeisance to the inequalities of left-wing identity politics .
All this was leading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , according to some elites , was to be unlike any other .
As Maeve Reston put it at CNN , “ many Americans ” would spend this Independence Day “ wrestling with the racist misdeeds of the country ’ s heroes ” and “ attempting to relearn the nation ’ s history.
” How galling to discover they did no such thing .
Outside of our newsrooms and faculty lounges , most Americans went about the Fourth as they always had , grilling burgers and dogs , sending up fireworks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polls show they also want justice for George Floyd was no great obstacle to celebrating a country where such self-correction is not only possible but part of the national credo .
The bourgeoisie Bolsheviks , who want to repudiate that same country , must have been furious ; the damned rubes , they must have concluded , were in need of a little “ moral clarity.
” Some explanation on those last two words .
In early June , the progressive writer Wesley Lowery sent a tweet calling for the journalism industry to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a place of moral clarity.
” By that , he meant reporters should tell truths—which is to say , truths friendly to his worldview—rather than assume a position of supposed objectivity .
This drew a lengthy essay from Andrew Sullivan , who argued that in exalting “ moral clarity , ” Lowery had eschewed moral complexity .
The result of such thinking , Sullivan said , is a new orthodoxy that sees America as fundamentally racist and tainted rather than a liberal work in progress .
This “ manic , Manichean world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as suspect and demanding they be ousted from their jobs .
Moral clarity , in other words , is just an excuse for totalitarianism .
From there came another piece ( last one , I promise ) by Masha Gessen at the New Yorker , who asked , “ Why are some journalists afraid of ‘ moral clarity ’ ?
” Gessen took issue with Sullivan and what they saw as his false antithesis , placing left-wing moral clarity and moral complexity in opposition .
In fact , Gessen said , moral clarity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s “ a quest , guided by clear values and informed by facts and context , and clearly aligned with the original concept of journalistic objectivity.
” Gessen then attempted to clarify where exactly this intrepid “ quest ” might take us : In other words , moral clarity means the hardening of left-wing policy preferences into unquestioned cultural assumptions .
Because Sullivan is arguing against this , because he wants to continue to think about these things , he ’ s an intellectual anarchist ; he believes , as Gessen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be subject to debate , that the sphere of legitimate controversy ought to be boundless.
” This , of course , is what many liberals used to believe , with “ question everything ” their mantra .
But that was decades ago .
Much has changed since then .
The left has won the culture war ; its ideas are ascendant .
Free inquiry is less useful now , allowing , as it does , annoying challenges to the enforcement of left-wing doctrine , including the view that America is terminally stricken by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says , is “ based on a different set of assumptions than the old story—and this is a good thing , and a necessary thing , as is moral clarity.
” In addressing Gessen ’ s argument , we might start by recalling the last time the term “ moral clarity ” entered our lexicon : during the run-up to the Iraq war .
Back then , the conservative author William J. Bennett published a book titled Why We Fight : Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism .
From there , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for those who wanted to shut down criticism of the Bush foreign policy , especially objections that it was too simplistic , too heedless of the Middle East ’ s complexities .
9/11 , the Bush defenders argued , had cleared up all that .
It had dawned a new age , one that had thrown the world into stark relief .
Whereas before we might have tolerated or ignored Saddam Hussein , now we could see his evil clearly , and really , that was all we needed .
Except it wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stormed into Iraq on a carousel of twirling rationales—WMDs , international law , democratic values—with a single moral fact at its center : Saddam was evil .
The result was chaos , bloodshed , sectarian strife , civil war , and a botched occupation that ’ s left America hog-tied to Mesopotamia to this day .
Moral clarity proved insufficient .
It gave us an exhilarating sense of self-righteousness , but it couldn ’ t answer all the subsidiary questions that followed : how to patch up ancient Sunni/Shia enmities , how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still , its powerful glow , its alluring reductiveness , proved difficult to extinguish .
As late as 2008 , Ari Fleischer was telling the New York Times that what he would miss most about George W. Bush ’ s presidency was its moral clarity .
Today it ’ s the wokesters who lust after such simplicity .
Confronted with immense questions of race and progress , they prefer a single moral clothesline : the racists have got to go .
Period .
QED .
And it ’ s certainly true that racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true that Saddam Hussein was evil .
Yet just as Saddam ’ s iniquity didn ’ t sort out everything that came afterwards , so too does racism ’ s wickedness not necessarily justify the destruction of statues , the censure of our past , the condemning of America as incurably bigoted .
These things are complicated , especially as they phase from the concrete into the abstract , a single statue to our entire history .
The only way to consider all their facets is to subject them to input from all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can ’ t speak for Andrew Sullivan , but that ’ s how I would defend moral complexity .
Gessen waves all this away : too late , the new consensus is already here .
Yet some of history ’ s worst crimes have been committed under the auspices of a revolutionary and uniform moral understanding .
Would only that we ’ d questioned them more .
Ahead of the Fourth of July , officials in Los Angeles County banned all fireworks , an injunction echoed by Governor Gavin Newsom .
Californians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On Independence Day , they absolutely lit up the Los Angeles skyline , a spectacular rejection of authority in a million colors .
And therein lies another reality about America and moral clarity .
Our country , it ’ s true , sometimes falls for moral panics and simplifying ideologies , like the kind currently mobbing our statues .
But when those hegemonies intrude too far , when they push too hard , the middle finger tends to go up rather quickly .
That isn ’ t the best manifestation of free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kind of genetic defiance , a built-in defense mechanism against pointy heads who wield power too piously and think they have all the answers .
Gessen and friends assume that history is on their side .
But the rest of America gets a say , too .
And it just might be that they buck this pack of moralizing totalitarians the same as they have others before .

Things move quickly though not evenly. Last week, more statues of American and Confederate figures were torn down, another riot broke out in Portland, there were rumblings that Hamilton might be next on the cancel list, and the California state legislature voted to strike anti-discrimination language from its constitution in obeisance to the inequalities of left-wing identity politics. All this was leading up to a Fourth of July weekend that, according to some elites, was to be unlike any other. As Maeve Reston put it at CNN, “many Americans” would spend this Independence Day “wrestling with the racist misdeeds of the country’s heroes” and “attempting to relearn the nation’s history.”
How galling to discover they did no such thing. Outside of our newsrooms and faculty lounges, most Americans went about the Fourth as they always had, grilling burgers and dogs, sending up fireworks, belting out the patriotic hymns. That polls show they also want justice for George Floyd was no great obstacle to celebrating a country where such self-correction is not only possible but part of the national credo. The bourgeoisie Bolsheviks, who want to repudiate that same country, must have been furious; the damned rubes, they must have concluded, were in need of a little “moral clarity.”
Some explanation on those last two words. In early June, the progressive writer Wesley Lowery sent a tweet calling for the journalism industry to be rebuilt into “one that operates from a place of moral clarity.” By that, he meant reporters should tell truths—which is to say, truths friendly to his worldview—rather than assume a position of supposed objectivity. This drew a lengthy essay from Andrew Sullivan, who argued that in exalting “moral clarity,” Lowery had eschewed moral complexity. The result of such thinking, Sullivan said, is a new orthodoxy that sees America as fundamentally racist and tainted rather than a liberal work in progress. This “manic, Manichean world” forbids any disagreement, viewing dissenters as suspect and demanding they be ousted from their jobs. Moral clarity, in other words, is just an excuse for totalitarianism.
From there came another piece (last one, I promise) by Masha Gessen at the New Yorker, who asked, “Why are some journalists afraid of ‘moral clarity’?” Gessen took issue with Sullivan and what they saw as his false antithesis, placing left-wing moral clarity and moral complexity in opposition. In fact, Gessen said, moral clarity is not simplistic at all. Rather it’s “a quest, guided by clear values and informed by facts and context, and clearly aligned with the original concept of journalistic objectivity.” Gessen then attempted to clarify where exactly this intrepid “quest” might take us:
Just a few years ago, the question of whether couples of the same sex should have the right to marry was up for discussion. Today, there would probably be an outcry if the Times decided to stage a pro-and-con debate on the issue, because the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a constitutionally protected right and because public opinion has shifted. Whether Americans should have access to universal, taxpayer-funded health care is currently subject to debate; with any luck, in ten years, it will not be.
In other words, moral clarity means the hardening of left-wing policy preferences into unquestioned cultural assumptions. Because Sullivan is arguing against this, because he wants to continue to think about these things, he’s an intellectual anarchist; he believes, as Gessen put it, that “everything should be subject to debate, that the sphere of legitimate controversy ought to be boundless.” This, of course, is what many liberals used to believe, with “question everything” their mantra. But that was decades ago. Much has changed since then. The left has won the culture war; its ideas are ascendant. Free inquiry is less useful now, allowing, as it does, annoying challenges to the enforcement of left-wing doctrine, including the view that America is terminally stricken by racism. This new consensus, Gessen says, is “based on a different set of assumptions than the old story—and this is a good thing, and a necessary thing, as is moral clarity.”
In addressing Gessen’s argument, we might start by recalling the last time the term “moral clarity” entered our lexicon: during the run-up to the Iraq war. Back then, the conservative author William J. Bennett published a book titled Why We Fight: Moral Clarity and the War on Terrorism. From there, “moral clarity” became a rallying cry for those who wanted to shut down criticism of the Bush foreign policy, especially objections that it was too simplistic, too heedless of the Middle East’s complexities. 9/11, the Bush defenders argued, had cleared up all that. It had dawned a new age, one that had thrown the world into stark relief. Whereas before we might have tolerated or ignored Saddam Hussein, now we could see his evil clearly, and really, that was all we needed.
Except it wasn’t all we needed. We stormed into Iraq on a carousel of twirling rationales—WMDs, international law, democratic values—with a single moral fact at its center: Saddam was evil. The result was chaos, bloodshed, sectarian strife, civil war, and a botched occupation that’s left America hog-tied to Mesopotamia to this day. Moral clarity proved insufficient. It gave us an exhilarating sense of self-righteousness, but it couldn’t answer all the subsidiary questions that followed: how to patch up ancient Sunni/Shia enmities, how to occupy a turbulent nation. Yet even still, its powerful glow, its alluring reductiveness, proved difficult to extinguish. As late as 2008, Ari Fleischer was telling the New York Times that what he would miss most about George W. Bush’s presidency was its moral clarity.
Today it’s the wokesters who lust after such simplicity. Confronted with immense questions of race and progress, they prefer a single moral clothesline: the racists have got to go. Period. QED. And it’s certainly true that racism is poisonous, just as it was true that Saddam Hussein was evil. Yet just as Saddam’s iniquity didn’t sort out everything that came afterwards, so too does racism’s wickedness not necessarily justify the destruction of statues, the censure of our past, the condemning of America as incurably bigoted. These things are complicated, especially as they phase from the concrete into the abstract, a single statue to our entire history. The only way to consider all their facets is to subject them to input from all sides, to rigorously debate them. I can’t speak for Andrew Sullivan, but that’s how I would defend moral complexity. Gessen waves all this away: too late, the new consensus is already here. Yet some of history’s worst crimes have been committed under the auspices of a revolutionary and uniform moral understanding. Would only that we’d questioned them more.
Ahead of the Fourth of July, officials in Los Angeles County banned all fireworks, an injunction echoed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Californians considered this, then said: nah. On Independence Day, they absolutely lit up the Los Angeles skyline, a spectacular rejection of authority in a million colors. And therein lies another reality about America and moral clarity. Our country, it’s true, sometimes falls for moral panics and simplifying ideologies, like the kind currently mobbing our statues. But when those hegemonies intrude too far, when they push too hard, the middle finger tends to go up rather quickly. That isn’t the best manifestation of free inquiry, but it does amount to a kind of genetic defiance, a built-in defense mechanism against pointy heads who wield power too piously and think they have all the answers.
Gessen and friends assume that history is on their side. But the rest of America gets a say, too. And it just might be that they buck this pack of moralizing totalitarians the same as they have others before.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-08--The Great Virginia Pipeline Swindle

The Great Virginia Pipeline Swindle

If by 2040 , the Old Dominion has completed its transition into a federal annex fringed by Berkshire-owned feudatories and horse farms , July 5 , 2020 will go down in history as the moment the power balance shifted decisively toward the new oligarchs .
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is dead .
Democrats in the statehouse have run out the clock and Dominion Power , having sunk billions into the project , is cutting its losses .
And on Sunday , the Wall Street Journal reported that , “ [ Dominion ] will almost entirely exit from its gas-transmission business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ storage assets to Berkshire Hathaway Energy.
” If the pipeline had been finished , Norfolk would probably have become a natural gas exporting terminal .
As it stands , the mid-Atlantic ’ s only liquid natural gas exporting terminal is the Dominion facility in Cove Point , Maryland , of which Berkshire now owns a share .
So , the big winners in the pipeline cancellation are : Berkshire Hathaway , the State of Maryland , and a cabal of rich progressives in Charlottesville .
The big losers are likely to be Dominion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a record of union-busting , including a recent incident in New Jersey when truckers and warehouse workers who tried to organize were laid off and replaced with contractors .
The union representing Dominion ’ s gas workers in several mid-Atlantic and Appalachian states seems to be worried , with good reason .
“ At this time we fully realize there are many unanswered questions and the Leadership is scheduling meetings with Labor Relations as well as the Company officials to transition employees and benefits over the next few months , ” United Local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Facebook page on Sunday .
Berkshire also owned most of the newspapers in western and central Virginia until March , including the Richmond Times-Dispatch , the Free Lance-Star , the Culpeper Times-Exponent , the Daily Progress in Charlottesville , the News Virignian in Waynesboro , and the Roanoke Times , giving them almost complete control of the pipeline narrative in the parts of the state where it mattered .
Lee Enterprises paid $ 140 million for all Berkshire ’ s papers nationwide in March , not just the ones in Virginia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s debt .
Unlike Berkshire ’ s New Jersey workers , the Roanoke Times has been allowed to unionize as of this April , right after they got rid of it .
The value of BH ’ s Virginia newspapers is peanuts compared to the $ 9.7 billion Dominion deal , but it is nevertheless worth noting that during the contentious debate over the pipeline , most of the newspapers in Virginia were owned by a company that is now going to acquire Dominion ’ s natural gas operations .
Today Berkshire does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the sole creditor to the company that does , which means they retain a non-trivial amount of influence , and much less of the risk .
It was not simply regulatory roadblocks that killed the pipeline ; in fact there were several important victories on that front .
The Supreme Court ruled in June that the pipeline could be cut underneath the Appalachian Trail , overturning an earlier verdict that the Forest Service didn ’ t have the authority to grant a permit .
No , it was political opposition , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That opposition came in the form of astroturf groups funded by people connected to Berkshire figures , and Democratic politicians who received donations from people connected to the company ( the largest single donor to the Democratic Party of Virginia in 2015 was the son of Buffett partner Charles Munger , Jr , whose money supplied more than half of their funds for statehouse races that year ) .
The defeat of the pipeline was also enabled by the near-complete collapse of the Republican Party of Virginia , which failed to run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislative districts in 2019 .
There are also a fair number of astroturf groups that played an important role , whose funding sources remain unclear .
One should point out that Ted Weschler , a top investment manager at Berkshire Hathaway , is a Charlottesvillian , who joined the company in 2012 and is frequently discussed as a potential successor to Buffett .
Weschler is a former business partner of billionaire Charlottesville resident Michael Bills , who used to manage the UVA endowment and was the prime political mover in the anti-Dominion campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board of Clean Virginia , and two years ago famously offered to replace any Dominion campaign donations to statehouse candidates with his own money .
Clean Virginia was run by Tom Perriello until he took a job in 2018 running the U.S. programs of George Soros ’ s Open Society Foundations .
Its current executive director is Brennan Gilmore , a former State Department employee who , among other things , filmed the Charlottesville car attack in 2017 .
Then there is the Virginia Mercury , a dark money-funded nonprofit journalism outlet that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mercury was initially funded through the Hopewell Fund , a 501c3 managed by Arabella Advisors , an institution that is a good example of how , though conservatives got a big win in Citizens United , progressives have figured out how to use the new rules better than any conservatives have .
The largest single donor to the Hopewell Fund , and the foundation that provided its seed funding , was the Buffett Foundation , according to CRC .
We don ’ t know who the specific donors for the Virginia Mercury are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved here , one has to wonder .
The Mercury has also profiled Michael Bills ’ counter-Dominion campaign , and one can peruse their coverage of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to get a sense of their views on the subject .
Editor-in-Chief Robert Zullo ’ s column after the death of the pipeline details his own changing views on the subject , which may or may not be related to his new set of patrons .
( Update : A PR representative for States Newsroom , of which the Mercury is a part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a stand-alone 501 ( c ) ( 3 ) and has not had an affiliation with the Hopewell fund for some time.
” ) What is beyond dispute is the death of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline has now resulted in a substantial acquisition for Berkshire Hathaway , after various people connected to the company have worked to kill it .
Anybody who claims it ’ s a victory for social justice should pay very close attention to how many union jobs the sale is likely to kill , and also to the private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural gas operations in Virginia hated by environmental activists haven ’ t gone away , they ’ re just owned by their allies now .
And the state once called the Mother of Presidents is now managed from Nebraska , via a branch office in Charlottesville .

If by 2040, the Old Dominion has completed its transition into a federal annex fringed by Berkshire-owned feudatories and horse farms, July 5, 2020 will go down in history as the moment the power balance shifted decisively toward the new oligarchs.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline is dead. Democrats in the statehouse have run out the clock and Dominion Power, having sunk billions into the project, is cutting its losses. And on Sunday, the Wall Street Journal reported that, “[Dominion] will almost entirely exit from its gas-transmission business with the sale of its pipeline and storage assets to Berkshire Hathaway Energy.”
If the pipeline had been finished, Norfolk would probably have become a natural gas exporting terminal. As it stands, the mid-Atlantic’s only liquid natural gas exporting terminal is the Dominion facility in Cove Point, Maryland, of which Berkshire now owns a share. So, the big winners in the pipeline cancellation are: Berkshire Hathaway, the State of Maryland, and a cabal of rich progressives in Charlottesville.
The big losers are likely to be Dominion’s union workers. Berkshire has a record of union-busting, including a recent incident in New Jersey when truckers and warehouse workers who tried to organize were laid off and replaced with contractors. The union representing Dominion’s gas workers in several mid-Atlantic and Appalachian states seems to be worried, with good reason. “At this time we fully realize there are many unanswered questions and the Leadership is scheduling meetings with Labor Relations as well as the Company officials to transition employees and benefits over the next few months,” United Local Gas Workers Local 69 posted to their Facebook page on Sunday.
Berkshire also owned most of the newspapers in western and central Virginia until March, including the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Free Lance-Star, the Culpeper Times-Exponent, the Daily Progress in Charlottesville, the News Virginian in Waynesboro, and the Roanoke Times, giving them almost complete control of the pipeline narrative in the parts of the state where it mattered. Lee Enterprises paid $140 million for all Berkshire’s papers nationwide in March, not just the ones in Virginia, and Berkshire now owns all of Lee’s debt. Unlike Berkshire’s New Jersey workers, the Roanoke Times has been allowed to unionize as of this April, right after they got rid of it.
The value of BH’s Virginia newspapers is peanuts compared to the $9.7 billion Dominion deal, but it is nevertheless worth noting that during the contentious debate over the pipeline, most of the newspapers in Virginia were owned by a company that is now going to acquire Dominion’s natural gas operations. Today Berkshire does not own the papers, but they are the sole creditor to the company that does, which means they retain a non-trivial amount of influence, and much less of the risk.
It was not simply regulatory roadblocks that killed the pipeline; in fact there were several important victories on that front. The Supreme Court ruled in June that the pipeline could be cut underneath the Appalachian Trail, overturning an earlier verdict that the Forest Service didn’t have the authority to grant a permit. No, it was political opposition, not regulatory hurdles, that killed the pipeline. That opposition came in the form of astroturf groups funded by people connected to Berkshire figures, and Democratic politicians who received donations from people connected to the company (the largest single donor to the Democratic Party of Virginia in 2015 was the son of Buffett partner Charles Munger, Jr, whose money supplied more than half of their funds for statehouse races that year). The defeat of the pipeline was also enabled by the near-complete collapse of the Republican Party of Virginia, which failed to run candidates in nearly a third of state legislative districts in 2019.
There are also a fair number of astroturf groups that played an important role, whose funding sources remain unclear. One should point out that Ted Weschler, a top investment manager at Berkshire Hathaway, is a Charlottesvillian, who joined the company in 2012 and is frequently discussed as a potential successor to Buffett. Weschler is a former business partner of billionaire Charlottesville resident Michael Bills, who used to manage the UVA endowment and was the prime political mover in the anti-Dominion campaign. Bills is the chairman of the board of Clean Virginia, and two years ago famously offered to replace any Dominion campaign donations to statehouse candidates with his own money. Clean Virginia was run by Tom Perriello until he took a job in 2018 running the U.S. programs of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. Its current executive director is Brennan Gilmore, a former State Department employee who, among other things, filmed the Charlottesville car attack in 2017.
Then there is the Virginia Mercury, a dark money-funded nonprofit journalism outlet that covers primarily environmental issues. The Virginia Mercury was initially funded through the Hopewell Fund, a 501c3 managed by Arabella Advisors, an institution that is a good example of how, though conservatives got a big win in Citizens United, progressives have figured out how to use the new rules better than any conservatives have. The largest single donor to the Hopewell Fund, and the foundation that provided its seed funding, was the Buffett Foundation, according to CRC. We don’t know who the specific donors for the Virginia Mercury are, but given the various Buffett-connected interests involved here, one has to wonder. The Mercury has also profiled Michael Bills’ counter-Dominion campaign, and one can peruse their coverage of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to get a sense of their views on the subject. Editor-in-Chief Robert Zullo’s column after the death of the pipeline details his own changing views on the subject, which may or may not be related to his new set of patrons. (Update: A PR representative for States Newsroom, of which the Mercury is a part, comments: “States Newsroom is a stand-alone 501(c)(3) and has not had an affiliation with the Hopewell fund for some time.”)
What is beyond dispute is the death of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline has now resulted in a substantial acquisition for Berkshire Hathaway, after various people connected to the company have worked to kill it. Anybody who claims it’s a victory for social justice should pay very close attention to how many union jobs the sale is likely to kill, and also to the private equity creeps behind the curtain. The natural gas operations in Virginia hated by environmental activists haven’t gone away, they’re just owned by their allies now. And the state once called the Mother of Presidents is now managed from Nebraska, via a branch office in Charlottesville.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-09--19th Century Radical Chic: How Transcendentalists Swooned Over John Brown

Kansas state capital mural by John Steuart Curry ( 1937 ) depicting abolitionist John Brown in the prelude to the Civil War , during the bleeding Kansas or border wars unrest .
Many Americans have been aghast at violent mobs toppling statues and the widespread looting and destructive rampages that followed the killing of George Floyd .
Media coverage often ignores the damage inflicted by righteous rioters and the businessmen , black and white , whose livelihoods have been destroyed .
Instead , activists are portrayed as heroic because of their political rhetoric and demands for radical changes .
Soaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater conflicts in the coming months .
More than 160 years ago , a similar pattern paved the way for a conflict that ravaged much of the nation .
Few people are aware of how one of America ’ s most respected philosophers helped inflame the divisions that led to the first Civil War in 1861 .
In his 1849 essay , “ On the Duty Of Civil Disobedience , ” Henry David Thoreau boldly declared : “ That government is best which governs not at all.
” After a night spent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thoreau “ saw that the State was half-witted.
” He concluded , “ I quietly declare war with the State , ” withdrawing his allegiance as long as the government enforced unjust laws .
But late in his life , Thoreau mutated into an apologist for bloodthirsty political fanaticism .
Thoreau , following in the footsteps of his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson , believed that “ our whole life is startlingly moral .
There is never an instant ’ s truce between virtue and vice.
” Thoreau was a Transcendentalist with boundless faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he never doubted that he perceived those absolutes far more clearly than the vast majority of people who “ lead lives of quiet desperation , ” as he wrote in Walden .
Thoreau was justifiably fiercely opposed to slavery .
He had initially been wary of fire-breathing Abolitionists who wanted the nation to pay any price to end slavery until he met and swooned for John Brown in 1857 .
Thoreau donated to Brown after hearing him make a rabble-rousing speech .
Thoreau bragged that he “ never read ” the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not wish to blunt my sense of right.
” Maybe that helped explain Thoreau ’ s obliviousness ( or lack of concern ) regarding Brown ’ s notorious murders in Pottawatomie , Kansas , when he and his sons hacked to death five men living in a pro-slavery portion of the state .
That 1856 carnage embodied one of Brown ’ s favorite sayings : “ Without the shedding of blood , there is no remission of sin.
” In October 1859 , Brown led a band of zealots attacking Harper ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arsenal , part of his plan to end slavery via the mass killing of slaveowners across the South .
Mount Holyoke University professor Christopher Benfey aptly characterized Brown in the New York Review of Books in 2013 as someone who was “ murderous , inept , politically marginal , probably insane.
” Most of the nation was horrified by Brown ’ s attack at Harper ’ s Ferry , which was speedily put down by federal troops led by Lt .
Colonel Robert E. Lee .
Even the nation ’ s foremost abolitionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attack as “ a misguided , wild , and apparently insane–effort.
” Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune that “ the way to universal emancipation lies not through insurrection , civil war , and bloodshed , but through peace , discussion , and quiet diffusion of sentiments of humanity and justice.
” But Thoreau decided that Brown was literally Jesus—or at least that Jesus and John Brown were “ two ends of a chain which I rejoice to know is not without its links.
” In “ A Plea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered in Concord , Massachusetts two weeks after Brown ’ s attack , Thoreau referred to Brown as an “ angel of light ” and described Brown ’ s Harper ’ s Ferry accomplices as his “ twelve disciples.
” Thoreau hailed “ the new saint who would make the gallows as glorious as the cross.
” Thoreau exalted Brown : “ No man has appeared in America , as yet , who loved his fellow man so well , and treated him so tenderly.
” That was balderdash on par with Stalin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the “ peace-loving Soviet Union.
” When Thoreau and Emerson met Brown in 1857 , Brown told them that it would be “ better for a whole generation of men , women , and children should pass away by violent death ” than for the Golden Rule or Declaration of Independence to ever be violated .
Rather than recognizing Brown as a lunatic seeking a pretext to slaughter much of humanity , Thoreau and Emerson hailed him as a moral visionary .
But they never explained how to reconcile the Golden Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s self-evident goodness made his killings irrelevant .
Thoreau declared , “ The question is not about the weapon , but the spirit in which you use it.
” As University of Connecticut Professor Michael Meyer noted in 1980 , “ Thoreau ’ s Transcendentalism allowed him to disregard any information about Brown which might have tarnished his image as martyr.
” Thoreau focused on Brown ’ s “ willingness to be killed—rather than Brown ’ s willingness to kill indiscriminately for his cause .
Thoreau never mentions that the first man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Harper ’ s Ferry was a free black man who was shot in the back.
” Similarly , Thoreau touted Brown ’ s fight against slavery in Kansas but never mentioned the Pottawattomie massacre .
Thoreau also entitled himself to disregard any publications which vigorously criticized Brown : “ they are not human enough to affect me at all.
” Thoreau and Emerson rallied northern opinion to view Brown as a martyr ; Emerson also explicitly defined Brown as a “ new saint ” and labeled him “ the rarest of heroes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a CUNY professor and author of a book on how John Brown “ sparked the Civil War , ” wrote in 2013 that Thoreau and Emerson ’ s “ bold , virtually solitary public support of John Brown rescued Brown from infamy.
” Thoreau and Emerson swayed northerners to see Brown as a hero ; Thoreau ’ s “ plea ” concluded with a call for vengeance against the South .
As a result , “ many Southerners viewed the raid as a larger Northern scheme to directly attack the South , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the approach of secession in 1861 , ” as the American Battlefield Trust noted .
For Thoreau and Emerson , “ trust yourself ” was effectively replaced by “ kill them all and let God sort them out.
” Thanks in part to their efforts , “ a passion for the violent solution to slavery was sweeping the abolitionist citizens of the nation , ” as historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind : A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War .
Radical Republican Congressional leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union should be preserved , though it cost a million lives , ” the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860 .
Massachusetts governor John Albion declared , “ We must conquer the South.
” Pro-war Bostonians urged the governor to “ drive the ruffians into the Gulf of Mexico and give the country to the Negroes.
” Massachusetts ’ zealots were matched by fanatic South Carolina secessionists who idiotically believed that firing on Fort Sumter was a great idea .
Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs warned Confederate President Jefferson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen … Mr. President , at this time it is suicide , murder , and you will lose us every friend in the North.
” But Davis ordered Gen. P.T .
Beauregard to open fire .
Thoreau ’ s canonization of John Brown helped drive the nation to a Civil War that left more than 700,000 soldiers dead .
With each passing year , the conflict became more unhinged from basic decency .
Shortly before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Georgia in 1864 , Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman telegraphed the Secretary of War that “ there is a class of people—men , women , and children—who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.
” Though the end of slavery was a blessing , the war ’ s aftermath unleashed new poxes .
As a result of illness , poverty , and negligence by federal officials , roughly 25 percent of freed slaves died or became gravely ill in the first years after the war , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 2012 book , Sick from Freedom .
Was it worth it ?
It is open to dispute whether a war was necessary to end slavery in America .
Abraham Lincoln said in 1859 that he was “ quite sure [ slavery ] would not outlast the century.
” Slavery ended almost every place else in the western hemisphere without a civil war .
In early 1862 , Lincoln asked Congress “ to consider a constitutional amendment that would guarantee compensated emancipation to any state , including those in rebellion , that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Fleming noted .
But abolitionists torpedoed the proposal and demanded that the war continue .
John Brown was the living embodiment of the 19th century quip : “ A fanatic is someone who does what the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the matter.
” Similarly , the mobs in many cities that are currently unleashing violence are convinced they are doing God ’ s work—or at least obeying the commandments they imbibed in college sociology classes .
But the idiocy of the new saviors knows no bounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statues of Frederick Douglass in New York , the monument of the 54th Massachusetts regiment ( one of the most famous colored regiments in the Civil War ) , and their beheading of the statute of Col. Hans Christian Heg , a Union officer who helped rescue escaped slaves before 1861 .
The Black Student Union and the Student Inclusion Coalition of the University of Wisconsin are also demanding removal of a statute of Abraham Lincoln on their campus .
Thoreau ’ s deification of John Brown should be a reminder of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of any ideal .
John Brown ’ s legacy vivified how hatred is far easier to unleash than to control .
Reasonable people can usually reach compromises or craft accommodations with happier results than mobs driven berserk by the latest Twitter hashtag .

Many Americans have been aghast at violent mobs toppling statues and the widespread looting and destructive rampages that followed the killing of George Floyd. Media coverage often ignores the damage inflicted by righteous rioters and the businessmen, black and white, whose livelihoods have been destroyed. Instead, activists are portrayed as heroic because of their political rhetoric and demands for radical changes.
Soaring political animosity is sparking fears of much greater conflicts in the coming months. More than 160 years ago, a similar pattern paved the way for a conflict that ravaged much of the nation. Few people are aware of how one of America’s most respected philosophers helped inflame the divisions that led to the first Civil War in 1861.
In his 1849 essay, “On the Duty Of Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau boldly declared: “That government is best which governs not at all.” After a night spent in jail for refusing to pay taxes, Thoreau “saw that the State was half-witted.” He concluded, “I quietly declare war with the State,” withdrawing his allegiance as long as the government enforced unjust laws.
But late in his life, Thoreau mutated into an apologist for bloodthirsty political fanaticism. Thoreau, following in the footsteps of his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson, believed that “our whole life is startlingly moral. There is never an instant’s truce between virtue and vice.” Thoreau was a Transcendentalist with boundless faith in absolute truth and absolute goodness. And he never doubted that he perceived those absolutes far more clearly than the vast majority of people who “lead lives of quiet desperation,” as he wrote in Walden.
Thoreau was justifiably fiercely opposed to slavery. He had initially been wary of fire-breathing Abolitionists who wanted the nation to pay any price to end slavery until he met and swooned for John Brown in 1857. Thoreau donated to Brown after hearing him make a rabble-rousing speech. Thoreau bragged that he “never read” the political columns in newspapers because “I do not wish to blunt my sense of right.” Maybe that helped explain Thoreau’s obliviousness (or lack of concern) regarding Brown’s notorious murders in Pottawatomie, Kansas, when he and his sons hacked to death five men living in a pro-slavery portion of the state. That 1856 carnage embodied one of Brown’s favorite sayings: “Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin.”
In October 1859, Brown led a band of zealots attacking Harper’s Ferry, Virginia to seize the federal arsenal, part of his plan to end slavery via the mass killing of slaveowners across the South. Mount Holyoke University professor Christopher Benfey aptly characterized Brown in the New York Review of Books in 2013 as someone who was “murderous, inept, politically marginal, probably insane.” Most of the nation was horrified by Brown’s attack at Harper’s Ferry, which was speedily put down by federal troops led by Lt. Colonel Robert E. Lee. Even the nation’s foremost abolitionist newspaper, The Liberator, condemned Brown’s attack as “a misguided, wild, and apparently insane–effort.” Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune that “the way to universal emancipation lies not through insurrection, civil war, and bloodshed, but through peace, discussion, and quiet diffusion of sentiments of humanity and justice.”
But Thoreau decided that Brown was literally Jesus—or at least that Jesus and John Brown were “two ends of a chain which I rejoice to know is not without its links.” In “A Plea for John Brown,” an oration delivered in Concord, Massachusetts two weeks after Brown’s attack, Thoreau referred to Brown as an “angel of light” and described Brown’s Harper’s Ferry accomplices as his “twelve disciples.” Thoreau hailed “the new saint who would make the gallows as glorious as the cross.”
Thoreau exalted Brown: “No man has appeared in America, as yet, who loved his fellow man so well, and treated him so tenderly.” That was balderdash on par with Stalin’s apologists gushing in the 1930s about the “peace-loving Soviet Union.” When Thoreau and Emerson met Brown in 1857, Brown told them that it would be “better for a whole generation of men, women, and children should pass away by violent death” than for the Golden Rule or Declaration of Independence to ever be violated. Rather than recognizing Brown as a lunatic seeking a pretext to slaughter much of humanity, Thoreau and Emerson hailed him as a moral visionary. But they never explained how to reconcile the Golden Rule with genocide.
For Thoreau, Brown’s self-evident goodness made his killings irrelevant. Thoreau declared, “The question is not about the weapon, but the spirit in which you use it.” As University of Connecticut Professor Michael Meyer noted in 1980, “Thoreau’s Transcendentalism allowed him to disregard any information about Brown which might have tarnished his image as martyr.” Thoreau focused on Brown’s “willingness to be killed—rather than Brown’s willingness to kill indiscriminately for his cause. Thoreau never mentions that the first man killed by Brown’s raiding party at Harper’s Ferry was a free black man who was shot in the back.” Similarly, Thoreau touted Brown’s fight against slavery in Kansas but never mentioned the Pottawattomie massacre. Thoreau also entitled himself to disregard any publications which vigorously criticized Brown: “they are not human enough to affect me at all.”
Thoreau and Emerson rallied northern opinion to view Brown as a martyr; Emerson also explicitly defined Brown as a “new saint” and labeled him “the rarest of heroes, a pure idealist.” David Reynolds, a CUNY professor and author of a book on how John Brown “sparked the Civil War,” wrote in 2013 that Thoreau and Emerson’s “bold, virtually solitary public support of John Brown rescued Brown from infamy.” Thoreau and Emerson swayed northerners to see Brown as a hero; Thoreau’s “plea” concluded with a call for vengeance against the South. As a result, “many Southerners viewed the raid as a larger Northern scheme to directly attack the South, leading to increased sectional distrust and accelerating the approach of secession in 1861,” as the American Battlefield Trust noted.
For Thoreau and Emerson, “trust yourself” was effectively replaced by “kill them all and let God sort them out.” Thanks in part to their efforts, “a passion for the violent solution to slavery was sweeping the abolitionist citizens of the nation,” as historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind: A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War.
Radical Republican Congressional leaders “unanimously agreed that the integrity of the Union should be preserved, though it cost a million lives,” the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860. Massachusetts governor John Albion declared, “We must conquer the South.” Pro-war Bostonians urged the governor to “drive the ruffians into the Gulf of Mexico and give the country to the Negroes.” Massachusetts’ zealots were matched by fanatic South Carolina secessionists who idiotically believed that firing on Fort Sumter was a great idea. Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs warned Confederate President Jefferson Davis to oppose launching an attack: “The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen … Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and you will lose us every friend in the North.” But Davis ordered Gen. P.T. Beauregard to open fire.
Thoreau’s canonization of John Brown helped drive the nation to a Civil War that left more than 700,000 soldiers dead. With each passing year, the conflict became more unhinged from basic decency. Shortly before he launched his famous swath of destruction through Georgia in 1864, Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman telegraphed the Secretary of War that “there is a class of people—men, women, and children—who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.”
Though the end of slavery was a blessing, the war’s aftermath unleashed new poxes. As a result of illness, poverty, and negligence by federal officials, roughly 25 percent of freed slaves died or became gravely ill in the first years after the war, as Connecticut College Professor Jim Downs noted in his 2012 book, Sick from Freedom.
Was it worth it? It is open to dispute whether a war was necessary to end slavery in America. Abraham Lincoln said in 1859 that he was “quite sure [slavery] would not outlast the century.” Slavery ended almost every place else in the western hemisphere without a civil war. In early 1862, Lincoln asked Congress “to consider a constitutional amendment that would guarantee compensated emancipation to any state, including those in rebellion, that would agree to abolish slavery gradually by 1900,” Fleming noted. But abolitionists torpedoed the proposal and demanded that the war continue.
John Brown was the living embodiment of the 19th century quip: “A fanatic is someone who does what the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the matter.” Similarly, the mobs in many cities that are currently unleashing violence are convinced they are doing God’s work—or at least obeying the commandments they imbibed in college sociology classes. But the idiocy of the new saviors knows no bounds, as illustrated by their attacks on statues of Frederick Douglass in New York, the monument of the 54th Massachusetts regiment (one of the most famous colored regiments in the Civil War), and their beheading of the statute of Col. Hans Christian Heg, a Union officer who helped rescue escaped slaves before 1861. The Black Student Union and the Student Inclusion Coalition of the University of Wisconsin are also demanding removal of a statute of Abraham Lincoln on their campus.
Thoreau’s deification of John Brown should be a reminder of the perils of glorifying political violence in the name of any ideal. John Brown’s legacy vivified how hatred is far easier to unleash than to control. Reasonable people can usually reach compromises or craft accommodations with happier results than mobs driven berserk by the latest Twitter hashtag.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Public Policy Hooligan. He is also a USA Today columnist. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.


theamericanconservative--2020-07-09--Anti-Slavery Zealot John Brown is No Hero

Kansas state capital mural by John Steuart Curry ( 1937 ) depicting abolitionist John Brown in the prelude to the Civil War , during the bleeding Kansas or border wars unrest .
Many Americans have been aghast at violent mobs toppling statues and the widespread looting and destructive rampages that followed the killing of George Floyd .
Media coverage often ignores the damage inflicted by righteous rioters and the businessmen , black and white , whose livelihoods have been destroyed .
Instead , activists are portrayed as heroic because of their political rhetoric and demands for radical changes .
Soaring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater conflicts in the coming months .
More than 160 years ago , a similar pattern paved the way for a conflict that ravaged much of the nation .
Few people are aware of how one of America ’ s most respected philosophers helped inflame the divisions that led to the first Civil War in 1861 .
In his 1849 essay , “ On the Duty Of Civil Disobedience , ” Henry David Thoreau boldly declared : “ That government is best which governs not at all.
” After a night spent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thoreau “ saw that the State was half-witted.
” He concluded , “ I quietly declare war with the State , ” withdrawing his allegiance as long as the government enforced unjust laws .
But late in his life , Thoreau mutated into an apologist for bloodthirsty political fanaticism .
Thoreau , following in the footsteps of his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson , believed that “ our whole life is startlingly moral .
There is never an instant ’ s truce between virtue and vice.
” Thoreau was a Transcendentalist with boundless faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And he never doubted that he perceived those absolutes far more clearly than the vast majority of people who “ lead lives of quiet desperation , ” as he wrote in Walden .
Thoreau was justifiably fiercely opposed to slavery .
He had initially been wary of fire-breathing Abolitionists who wanted the nation to pay any price to end slavery until he met and swooned for John Brown in 1857 .
Thoreau donated to Brown after hearing him make a rabble-rousing speech .
Thoreau bragged that he “ never read ” the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not wish to blunt my sense of right.
” Maybe that helped explain Thoreau ’ s obliviousness ( or lack of concern ) regarding Brown ’ s notorious murders in Pottawatomie , Kansas , when he and his sons hacked to death five men living in a pro-slavery portion of the state .
That 1856 carnage embodied one of Brown ’ s favorite sayings : “ Without the shedding of blood , there is no remission of sin.
” In October 1859 , Brown led a band of zealots attacking Harper ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arsenal , part of his plan to end slavery via the mass killing of slaveowners across the South .
Mount Holyoke University professor Christopher Benfey aptly characterized Brown in the New York Review of Books in 2013 as someone who was “ murderous , inept , politically marginal , probably insane.
” Most of the nation was horrified by Brown ’ s attack at Harper ’ s Ferry , which was speedily put down by federal troops led by Lt .
Colonel Robert E. Lee .
Even the nation ’ s foremost abolitionist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attack as “ a misguided , wild , and apparently insane–effort.
” Horace Greeley wrote in the New York Tribune that “ the way to universal emancipation lies not through insurrection , civil war , and bloodshed , but through peace , discussion , and quiet diffusion of sentiments of humanity and justice.
” But Thoreau decided that Brown was literally Jesus—or at least that Jesus and John Brown were “ two ends of a chain which I rejoice to know is not without its links.
” In “ A Plea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered in Concord , Massachusetts two weeks after Brown ’ s attack , Thoreau referred to Brown as an “ angel of light ” and described Brown ’ s Harper ’ s Ferry accomplices as his “ twelve disciples.
” Thoreau hailed “ the new saint who would make the gallows as glorious as the cross.
” Thoreau exalted Brown : “ No man has appeared in America , as yet , who loved his fellow man so well , and treated him so tenderly.
” That was balderdash on par with Stalin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the “ peace-loving Soviet Union.
” When Thoreau and Emerson met Brown in 1857 , Brown told them that it would be “ better for a whole generation of men , women , and children should pass away by violent death ” than for the Golden Rule or Declaration of Independence to ever be violated .
Rather than recognizing Brown as a lunatic seeking a pretext to slaughter much of humanity , Thoreau and Emerson hailed him as a moral visionary .
But they never explained how to reconcile the Golden Rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s self-evident goodness made his killings irrelevant .
Thoreau declared , “ The question is not about the weapon , but the spirit in which you use it.
” As University of Connecticut Professor Michael Meyer noted in 1980 , “ Thoreau ’ s Transcendentalism allowed him to disregard any information about Brown which might have tarnished his image as martyr.
” Thoreau focused on Brown ’ s “ willingness to be killed—rather than Brown ’ s willingness to kill indiscriminately for his cause .
Thoreau never mentions that the first man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Harper ’ s Ferry was a free black man who was shot in the back.
” Similarly , Thoreau touted Brown ’ s fight against slavery in Kansas but never mentioned the Pottawattomie massacre .
Thoreau also entitled himself to disregard any publications which vigorously criticized Brown : “ they are not human enough to affect me at all.
” Thoreau and Emerson rallied northern opinion to view Brown as a martyr ; Emerson also explicitly defined Brown as a “ new saint ” and labeled him “ the rarest of heroes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a CUNY professor and author of a book on how John Brown “ sparked the Civil War , ” wrote in 2013 that Thoreau and Emerson ’ s “ bold , virtually solitary public support of John Brown rescued Brown from infamy.
” Thoreau and Emerson swayed northerners to see Brown as a hero ; Thoreau ’ s “ plea ” concluded with a call for vengeance against the South .
As a result , “ many Southerners viewed the raid as a larger Northern scheme to directly attack the South , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the approach of secession in 1861 , ” as the American Battlefield Trust noted .
For Thoreau and Emerson , “ trust yourself ” was effectively replaced by “ kill them all and let God sort them out.
” Thanks in part to their efforts , “ a passion for the violent solution to slavery was sweeping the abolitionist citizens of the nation , ” as historian Thomas Fleming wrote in A Disease in the Public Mind : A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War .
Radical Republican Congressional leaders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Union should be preserved , though it cost a million lives , ” the New York Times reported on Christmas Day 1860 .
Massachusetts governor John Albion declared , “ We must conquer the South.
” Pro-war Bostonians urged the governor to “ drive the ruffians into the Gulf of Mexico and give the country to the Negroes.
” Massachusetts ’ zealots were matched by fanatic South Carolina secessionists who idiotically believed that firing on Fort Sumter was a great idea .
Confederate Secretary of State Robert Toombs warned Confederate President Jefferson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen … Mr. President , at this time it is suicide , murder , and you will lose us every friend in the North.
” But Davis ordered Gen. P.T .
Beauregard to open fire .
Thoreau ’ s canonization of John Brown helped drive the nation to a Civil War that left more than 700,000 soldiers dead .
With each passing year , the conflict became more unhinged from basic decency .
Shortly before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Georgia in 1864 , Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman telegraphed the Secretary of War that “ there is a class of people—men , women , and children—who must be killed or banished before you can hope for peace and order.
” Though the end of slavery was a blessing , the war ’ s aftermath unleashed new poxes .
As a result of illness , poverty , and negligence by federal officials , roughly 25 percent of freed slaves died or became gravely ill in the first years after the war , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 2012 book , Sick from Freedom .
Was it worth it ?
It is open to dispute whether a war was necessary to end slavery in America .
Abraham Lincoln said in 1859 that he was “ quite sure [ slavery ] would not outlast the century.
” Slavery ended almost every place else in the western hemisphere without a civil war .
In early 1862 , Lincoln asked Congress “ to consider a constitutional amendment that would guarantee compensated emancipation to any state , including those in rebellion , that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Fleming noted .
But abolitionists torpedoed the proposal and demanded that the war continue .
John Brown was the living embodiment of the 19th century quip : “ A fanatic is someone who does what the Lord would do if He knew the facts of the matter.
” Similarly , the mobs in many cities that are currently unleashing violence are convinced they are doing God ’ s work—or at least obeying the commandments they imbibed in college sociology classes .
But the idiocy of the new saviors knows no bounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statues of Frederick Douglass in New York , the monument of the 54th Massachusetts regiment ( one of the most famous colored regiments in the Civil War ) , and their beheading of the statute of Col. Hans Christian Heg , a Union officer who helped rescue escaped slaves before 1861 .
The Black Student Union and the Student Inclusion Coalition of the University of Wisconsin are also demanding removal of a statute of Abraham Lincoln on their campus .
Thoreau ’ s deification of John Brown should be a reminder of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of any ideal .
John Brown ’ s legacy vivified how hatred is far easier to unleash than to control .
Reasonable people can usually reach compromises or craft accommodations with happier results than mobs driven berserk by the latest Twitter hashtag .
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights , Attention Deficit Democracy , and Public Policy Hooligan .
He is also a USA Today columnist .
Follow him on Twitter @ JimBovard .