President-elect Obama, a student of the Constitution, and, I presume, American History, is foolishly repeating one of the worst aspects of our national history: he is giving in to tyrants under the ill-conceived notion that dialogue will change everything. I don't know which is worse, his misunderstanding of our history, or his naivete.
Their are two living varieties of Homo Sapiens: Varietas Libertas, the liberty variety, and Varietas Tyrannis, the tyranny variety. Tyranni devour liberti every minute of every day and President-elect Obama is soon to be eaten.
In 1787, during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the stolid, solid, sullen, surly, sordid, southern slaveholding states threatened their version of disaster -- the breakup of the nascent Union. This form of extortion was used by the tyranno-Framers to get the liberto-Framers to agree to inserting the fugitive slave language into the Constitution as well as protecting the slave trade for twenty years and, worst evil of all, adding the "three-fifths clause" for determining congressional representation and thereby givng the South more representatives than their population warranted.
These actions combined to establish the "states' rights" theory in all future conversations about civil rights. In fact "states' rights" is still in control of our liberties. This morning I read an article on Yahoo which said that the U.S. refused to sign a U.N. non-binding agreement that called for decriminalizing homosexuality. The U.S. said that signing such an agreement would put our national government in conflict with several state laws that operate against homosexuality.
In 1790, duing the first Congress under the new Constitution, Benjamin Franklin performed his last public act. As President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, Mr. Franklin presented a petition to Congress calling for an end to slavery. Other similar petitions were presented at about the same time. Delegates from the South objected vehemently. Two congressmen who were among the chief defenders of slavery were James Jackson, a tyrannus, of Georgia and William L. Smith, also a tyrannus, of South Carolina. They delivered some rants on the floor of Congress, and their remarks were on the record.
The talking points Mr. Smith and Mr. Jackson used were repeated, probably millions of times, over the years. The quarrel between tyranni and liberti was always in action. Again and again the tyranni pointed out that their slave property had value and someone would have to pay should slavery be abolished. They pointed out that the North entered into the Union knowing that slavery was an essential institution in the South. They reminded all that Christianity was pro-slavery and that history shows all nations were as well. These arguments reflect a powerful theme that persists to this day: morality can be suspended, or nullified, when it clashes with the wishes of Varietas Tyrannis. Challenges to the moral position of the South were, and are, not to be made, and to do otherwise was to besmirch the honor of the fine people of the slaveholding-South; in effect, if one disagreed with southerners then one was being disrespectful and in such a climate discussion and compromise were simply not possible. They threatened war between the states and death to offending officials if slavery should be abolished. Each state, especially those in the South, had a right to do what it pleased – states’ rights, as a means to defend slavery, emerged. But at the same time the right of northern states to grant freedom to runaway slaves was prohibited by the Constitution. Like the phrase, "live and let live," which tyranni mean only when it works in their favor, so it was, and is, with "states’ rights."
According to Smith and Jackson, blacks, if freed, would never assimilate into society and would never be able to take care of themselves. This inferiority of free blacks, claimed the tyranni, could only be managed by preventing their sexual intercourse or by destroying their babies, otherwise they would multiply to the detriment of white society.
In 1850, John C. Calhoun, a tyrannus, in his last public act, wrote a speech for delivery in the Senate. Calhoun was too ill to deliver the speech himself but a Senator from VA read it for him. Calhoun died shortly afterward. Mr. Calhoun, like his tyranno-predecessors, resorted again to extortion. In part, he said:
Unless something decisive is done, I again ask what is to stop this agitation [cries for the abolition of slavery] before the great and final object at which it aims – the abolition of slavery – is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something decisive is not now done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession?
Mr. Calhoun’s solution, he claimed, was easy. He didn’t use these exact words, but he actually was demanding a new form of government. Here are his terms:
· The North must concede "to the South an equal right in the acquired territory." This would make certain that the institution of slavery would spread across the nation in some fifty-fifty split of new states.
· The national government must make sure that the fugitive-slave function is "faithfully fulfilled." "States’ rights" for the South, but not for the North.
· The national government must make sure that the agitation for abolition of slavery would be stopped at once and for all time. Freedom of speech is to be denied.
· A Constitutional amendment must be made that "will restore to the South in substance the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed." In effect, Mr. Calhoun wanted to preserve "the Slave Power." He wanted the South to have veto power over legislation it did not like.
It is undeniable—every one of these measures was designed to preserve and expand the institution of slavery throughout the nation. Mr. Calhoun was using the white supremacist portions of the original Constitution as support for his argument to rewrite it—to add new tyanno-functions. The alternative was to force a crash of the Constitutional System by secession of the slaveholding-southern states. States’ rights entered into this discussion only as a way of preserving the institution of slavery, and the only reason for preserving the institution of slavery was to preserve the way of life of the ruling slaveholding class of the South. Slavery is a purely tyranno-institution, and only the tyranni want to preserve it. There is no such thing as liberto-slavery. Mr. Calhoun made it clear that his terms were not negotiable. If the North refused, then secession would soon follow. He closed with these extortionate words:
At all events, the responsibility of saving the Union rests on the North and not the South. The South cannot save it by any act of hers, and the North may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do justice and perform her duties under the Constitution should be regarded as a sacrifice.
Then, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected, and he, unlike Mr. Obama, was perceived by the tyranno-South as a strong leader, one who would not compromise on slavery. The tyranni had finally met a libertus who could not be rolled. So they lost control, as tyranni often do.
In my view the tyranno-leaders of the South lost control of themselves in 1860 and beyond, and acted irresponsibly – they could not suppress their tyranno-natures. The secessions and the attack on Fort Sumter were not only completely unnecessary but also stupendously, stupidly, suicidally dangerous. Yes, an anti-slavery President had been elected, but the institution of slavery was still intact. No abolition legislation was pending, and it was not clear at all that such legislation would be viewed by the courts as constitutional, and the South had more than enough votes to block any anti-slavery constitutional amendments. Abolitionists were unpopular in the North, so there was a long way to go before any abolition legislation could be proposed, and longer still before it could become law.
Wise men (as if men who wanted to preserve slavery could be called "wise") would have recognized that the North was racist and would have accepted almost any sham reframing of the institution of slavery. Wise men would have waited to see what would happen after Mr. Lincoln took power. Wise men would have understood that there was always time to secede later should their worst fears be realized. Wise men would have understood that by continuing to work within the national government they could delay and modify unwelcome legislation, and they could at the same time gain more time to spend in military preparation—the Second Amendment gave them the authority to enlarge, equip and train their militias. But these tyranni did not act wisely. They could feel that their time was running out—they stood outside the civilized world. Their collective acts fit a commonplace definition of insanity—they were dangerous to themselves and to others. They were not fit to lead a nation. Their mantra was, "give me slavery or give me the deaths of America’s young men."
Surely they knew that they could always refuse to comply with any national government orders that they did not approve, but they were obviously impulsive and failed to plan ahead. They were highly irritable and aggressive, and had repeatedly approved, if not directed, physical assaults against powerless slaves in their respective states, and now they were dangerously expanding their field of violence to assault the powerful, capable people of the North who could respond in kind, and who had the population and industrial resources to win any civil war – especially when provoked.
The South was at a great disadvantage with respect to men and materiel. In order to win against the more powerful North, every tactic, every cannonade, every cavalry charge, every bayonet thrust would have to favor the South. Wise men would have realized that the South faced long, probably insurmountable, odds. The tyranno-leaders of the South recklessly disregarded the safety of themselves and of the citizens of the South. These tyranni knew or should have known the strength of the North. After all, the South had many high elected officials serving in Washington D.C. Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union army so he should have known its strength. Either the southern leaders did not compare the strength of the North to their own, or they relied on their internal sense of tyranno-superiority to make them confident of victory. But flying bullets and exploding armaments do not recognize the imaginary invincibility claimed by their targets. Delusion, no matter its inspiration, does not make the crazed one immune to the laws of physics or to corporeal insults.
So the answer is clear: the southern tyranni did not act wisely; instead they acted like men who were uncontrollably angry—just having a gargantuan, grotesque, group temper fit. They were being denied their due – their almost divine right to rule. They knew they were right in all things and they believed that they had a right to spread their power, and their "peculiar" institution of slavery, across the continent. What right did some self-righteous liberto-northerners have to interfere in the tyranno-version of manifest destiny? One of the most important characteristics of Varietas Tyrannis is that they are willing to use force and deception to make others live their lives the way they, the tyranni, want. Another defining characteristic is that tyranni, in the extreme form, are willing to take the lives of others. The tyranno-leaders of the southern slaveholding states definitely exhibited both these characteristics.
Perhaps Mr. Obama, who models himself after Mr. Lincoln, imagines that he is faced with such a monumental situation. Perhaps he imagines himself facing the tyranno-South of Mr. Lincoln's day. Perhaps Mr. Obama is trying to prevent a modern Civil War. But he misunderstands history. Mr. Lincoln was prepared to fight in order to make the promise of the Declaration of Independence come true. That is why he is great. He was willing to say to the tyranno-South, "You are wrong and you must change." Mr. Lincoln was not trying to preserve the peace, he was trying to preserve the Constitution and liberty.
And of course "states' rights" still dominant our lives and still deny civil rights to American citizens. By my count we now have 30 states in which gay marriage is prohibited by state law. "States' rights" are inherently anti-democratic. They are a way of letting small groups of tyranni ,who hate some group, to indulge their hatred. The only way we can ever get equality for all is to enforce the Constitution, which, as the "states' rightists" know very well, does not prohibit gay marriage. This legal fakery which extolls the virtues of Federalism is a fraud and is anti-American.
George Washington recognized the existence of Varietas Tyrannis and he described them this way in his Farewell Address:
... they [political parties] are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people...
Mr. Warren matches Mr. Washington's description. Mr. Warren is a "cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled man."
But a more recent president has also described Mr. Warren and his tyranno-associates. Jimmy Carter wrote the following in his book, Our Endangered Values:
Jimmy Carter’s Description of Christian Fundamentalists
I soon learned that there was a more intense form of fundamentalism, with some prevailing characteristics:
· Almost invariably, fundamentalist movements are led by authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others, and within religious groups, have an overwhelming commitment to subjugate women and to dominate their fellow believers.
· Although fundamentalists usually believe that the past is better than the present, they retain certain self-beneficial aspects of both their historic religious beliefs and of the modern world.
· Fundamentalists draw clear distinctions between themselves, as true believers, and others, convinced that they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil.
· Fundamentalists are militant in fighting against any challenge to their beliefs. They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda.
· Fundamentalists tend to make their self-definition increasingly narrow and restricted, to isolate themselves, to demagogue emotional issues, and to view change, cooperation, negotiation, and other efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness.
To summarize, there are three words that characterize this brand of fundamentalism: rigidity, domination, and exclusion.
Mr. Warren matches Mr. Carter's description very well.
Tyranni like Mr. Warren have learned to smell the weakness of liberti, especially those who, unlike Abraham Lincoln, seek compromise. But there is no legitimate reason to compromise the rights of our citizens, there never has been. Some Presidents understand this and fight for the Constitution, others don't. Mr. Obama claims to be fierce in his defense of GLBT rights, but all he has displayed so far is weakness and docility. He speaks out strongly only when he chastises those who got him elected when they tell him he is making a mistake.
Mr. Obama should remember that Mr. Warren and his tyranno-followers do not have an army, they only have votes. But Mr. Obama has already won the election. He doesn't need their votes today, he needs to defend the Constitution, but he seems to already be running for reelection.
Abraham Lincoln faced a much more dangerous situation in 1860 and he did his duty. It appears that Mr. Obama is no Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln did not compromise the Constitution, Mr. Obama seems to be willing to do so. Mr. Obama seems to think that "separate but equal" is the way to go, and there have been Presidents who followed that path, but Abraham Lincoln was not one of them.