Thornwell on politics in church

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. John C. Hagee, and Father Michael Pfleger share at least one assumption: that politics has a place in the pulpit. Presbyterian pastor, educator, and theologian James Henley Thornwell (1812-1862) had something to say about that error.

A South Carolinian, Thornwell was instrumental in founding the Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States of America. Southern Presbyterians set up their own denomination only after their Northern brethren, in the 1861 General Assembly, voted to make loyalty to the United States a religious obligation.

The Presbyterian Synod of South Carolina met in Abbeville in November of that year. While these ministers and elders were assembled, they unanimously declared their personal loyalty to their country. The Confederacy was struggling for its survival in an “ unjust, cruel, and tyrannical” war, its success “ the only hope of constitutional liberty, on this continent.” They went on to endorse President Davis’ call for a day of fasting and prayer. But the Abbeville resolution was passed by men acting, they were careful to emphasize, “ not in their ecclesiastical capacity as a court of Jesus Christ, but in their private capacity.” Despite the passions of war, they understood that the church must be above politics or even patriotism. Thornwell had taught them well.

The following quotations (taken from The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, published in 4 volumes) speak to the sorry situation that exists in America today, as churchmen of the right and left, black and white, confuse their own opinions with the Gospel.

During the twenty-five years in which I have fulfilled my course as a preacher– all of which have been spent in my native State, and nearly all in this city [Columbia, South Carolina]– I have never introduced secular politics into the instructions of the pulpit. It has been a point of conscience with me to know no party in the State. Questions of law and public administration I have left to the tribunals appointed to settle them, and have confined my exhortations to those great matters that pertain immediately to the kingdom of God. I have left it to Cæ sar to take care of his own rights, and have insisted only upon the supreme rights of the Almighty. The angry disputes of the forum I have excluded from the house of the Lord. And while all classes have been exhorted to the discharge of their common duties, as men, as citizens, as members of the family, while the sanctions of religion have, without scruple, been applied to all the relations of life, whether public or private, civil or domestic, the grounds of dissension which divide the community into parties, and range its members under different banners, have not been permitted to intrude into the sanctuary. The business of a preacher, as such, is to expound the Word of God. He has no commission to go beyond the teaching of the Scriptures. He has no authority to expound to senators the Constitution of the State, nor to interpret for judges the law of the land. In the civil and political sphere the dead must bury their dead. [“ Sermon on National Sins,” CW4, 511]

The Church, it is true, is to declare and enforce revealed Truth, and, among other duties, she is to enjoin obedience to the powers that be. But when the question arises, who and what those powers are, and how far obedience must be carried, the Church must remit the answer to the civil tribunals of the land, and to the dictates of the individual conscience. She has no commission from her Lord to declare what form of government any people shall adopt, how long they shall continue to maintain it, or under what circumstances they shall change it. Her members, as citizens, may and should take an active part in all discussions of the kind, but her courts, as authoritative tribunals of Christ, must be as silent as their Master. General principles she may and must announce— the eternal principles of the moral law; but their concrete application to political constitutions and political changes does not fall within the limits of her power. [“ Reasons for Separate Organization,” CW4, 440]

If she [the church] undertakes to meddle with the things of Cæ sar, she must expect to be crushed by the sword of Cæ sar. If she condescends to put herself upon the level with the countless institutes which philanthropy or folly has contrived for the earthly good of the race, she must expect to share the fate of human devices and expedients. She is of God, and if she forgets that it is her Divine prerogative to speak in the name and by the authority of God– if she relinquishes the dialect of Canaan, and stoops to babble in the dialects of earth– she must expect to be treated as a babbler .... We have seen the experiment tried in certain quarters of reducing the Church to the condition of a voluntary society, aiming at the promotion of universal good. We have seen her treated as a contrivance for every species of reform— individual, social, political. We have seen her foremost, under the plea of philanthropy, in every species of moral knight-errantry, from the harmless project of a pin-cushion club, to the formation of conspiracies for convulsing governments to their very centre. The result has been precisely what might have been expected. Christ has been expelled from these pulpits, and almost the only Gospel which is left them is the gospel of the Age of Reason. [“ Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church,” CW2, 45– 47]

Jesus Christ is the only king in Zion— the Bible, the only statute-book He has given to His people, and whatever is beside, or contrary to it, is no part of the faith or duty of the Church. [“ The Revised Book of Discipline,” CW4, 312]

[T]he Church is not at liberty to speculate. She has a creed, but no opinions. When she speaks, it must be in the name of the Lord, and her only argument is Thus it is written. [“ The Relation of the Church to Slavery,” CW4, 384]

NOTHING EVER CHANGES

Demonstrators demanding freedom for Tibet, and protesting China's abysmal human rights record, created a furor around the world as the Olympic torch made its way from Greece to the site of the summer games in Beijing. The flame was actually extinguished on several occasions. Lost in the news coverage was the origin of the Olympic torch-bearing tradition.

It's not that old, and certainly doesn't go back to ancient Greece. As Chinese dictators hope to burnish the image of their regime in hosting the 2008 games, the XI Olympiad held in Berlin in 1936 was a grand opportunity for the Third Reich to put on a public relations spectacle. What better way to symbolize the supposed continuity of classical civilization with their own "New World Order" than to light a flame at Mt. Olympus and bear it to the capital of the Reich? A mirror made in Germany by the Zeiss corporation focused the sun to light a torch, fabricated of steel-clad magnesium by Krupp, which was then run by relay to Berlin, the event lovingly covered by Josef Goebbels. The route taken was through southeastern and central Europe, countries that would soon be overrun by the armed forces of National Socialism.

Hitler's Germany permitted capitalism but allowed no political freedom. It's only fitting that the People's Republic of China, today's largest fascist state, continue to carry the torch.

Is Racism Only a White Problem?

Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the 8,000 member congregation where Barack Obama is a member, has finally garnered some of the scrutiny he so richly deserved. Sen. Obama, now that he is about to clinch the Democratic nomination for president, has at last distanced himself from his longtime friend.

"Hillary ain't never been called a nigger," observed the reverend on one occasion as he denounced the privileged Clinton and boosted Barack. Will the preacher's promotion of politics from the pulpit cause his church to lose its tax exempt status? You know the answer to that.

Will Rev. Wright's retirement quiet the controversy? Probably. But the problem is not just Wright, but the blatantly racist church he led. According to their own website, Obama's church promulgates a "Black Value System," and proclaims itself "a congregation which is Unashamedly Black." [Capitalized in the original.] "We are an African people, and remain 'true to our native land,' the mother continent, the cradle of civilization ... We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community."

If a white candidate belonged to some cult that promised to minister only to whites, held up something called a "white value system," and promoted Eurocentrism, would not that “church” be denounced— and rightly so? Aren’t all Christians to uphold their Creator’s value system?

The Bible clearly teaches that God is concerned about individuals and their relationship with Himself. He sent Jesus to die for the sins of mankind, and He calls all to repentance and salvation. If God is colorblind, can His church be anything less?

The problem here is double-mindedness on the part of those calling themselves Christian. Rev. Wright’s rhetorical indiscretions got him in trouble, but his church continues to promote racialist nonsense. When will this congregation—and its most prominent member—be called to account for the sin of racism?

Our "Civil Religion"

From The Myth of a Christian Nation, by Gregory A. Boyd:

"No version of the kingdom of the world is closer to the kingdom of God than others because it does its job relatively well. For God's kingdom looks like Jesus, and no amount of sword-wielding, however just it may be, can ever get a person, government, nation, or world closer to that. The kingdom of God is not an ideal version of the kingdom of the world; it's not something that any version of the kingdom of the world can aspire toward or be measured against. The kingdom of God is a completely distinct, alternative way of doing life."

"If you peal back the facade of the civil religion, you find that America is about as pagan as any country we could ever send missionaries to .... The fact that we have a quasi-Christian civil religion doesn't help; if anything, it hurts precisely because it creates the illusion in the minds of kingdom people that we are closer to the example of Jesus than we actually are."

Here they go again

Liberals claim to be outraged over supposedly “racist” and “inflammatory” statements made in a Ron Paul publication fifteen or twenty years ago, by a staff writer unknown to the congressman. We’re still waiting for the media to mention another presidential candidate’s church. To refresh your memory we repeat our comments first posted here, on the SCLoS Historian blog, on August 26 of last year:

Picture the headlines: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ADMITS MEMBERSHIP IN RACIST CHURCH.

The church in question, it was discovered, openly promulgates a “White Value System,” and proclaims itself “a congregation which is Unashamedly White.” “We are a European people, and remain ‘true to our native land,’ the mother continent, the cradle of civilization … We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.”

Don’t get excited. This is all made up. But can’t you imagine the “breaking news,” the denunciations by civil rights leaders, the candidate stuttering to explain, and then withdrawing in disgrace?

Well, it’s not entirely made up. The statements quoted above are taken from the website of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the 8,000-member congregation where Dr. Jeremiah Wright is senior pastor. And where Sen. Barack Obama is a member. All we’ve done is insert the words “White” in place of “Black,” and “European” in place of “African.”

No need to dwell on the liberal double-standard when it comes to the “R-word.” We all know how that works. What seems most striking though, is this church’s double-mindedness. Shouldn’t Christians seek to uphold their Creator’s value system, not one based on race (whatever that means)? Those in Rev. Wright’s flock may prefer the company of those who look like themselves, but the Savior’s church cannot be built on bigotry.

Lincoln's Unnecessary War

Liberal sensitivities were shocked one more time when presidential candidate Ron Paul suggested that the American “ Civil War” didn't have to happen. AOL went on to conduct a poll, asking people if they too believe that Lincoln was wrong to wage the most costly war in American history. As of this writing over 90,000 have responded, with the YES vote in 31 states prevailing. Granted, it's not a scientific survey, but we can only conclude that thinking people are beginning to question Lincoln and his war.

The real Lincoln is very different from the demigod generations of Americans have been taught to worship. Some admirers claim that Lincoln was a “benevolent dictator.” Judge Andrew Napolitano responded to this in his recent book, The Constitution in Exile. “The numerous civilians who were injured by Lincoln’s troops, the citizens whose homes were burned and destroyed, and the parents and wives who lost their loved ones in the … War would certainly not have called him a ‘benevolent dictator.’” Judge Napolitano concluded that “The bloodiest war in American history could have been avoided. But, with very little regard for honesty, Lincoln increased federal power and assaulted the Constitution.”

Thomas DiLorenzo, in his groundbreaking book The Real Lincoln, made it very clear what “saving the Union” meant: “[Lincoln] wanted to use military force to destroy once and for all the doctrines of federalism and states’ rights that had, since the founding of the republic, frustrated ambitious politicians like himself who wanted a highly centralized and greatly enlarged state.” Lincoln destroyed the voluntary Union of the states, replacing it with a consolidated, coercive government the Founding Fathers would not have recognized.

Prof. DiLorenzo likened Lincoln's “saving the Union” to a man who was abusing his wife, causing her to leave him. The man goes out and grabs her, beats her up, drags her back into the house, and says, “If you leave again I'll kill you!” Can that man be applauded for having “saved the marriage” ?

"Total war had made its lethal debut"

"By the end of the [Civil War] the process of radicalization made possible by identifying war aims with a humanitarian cause had turned the conflict into a merciless and bloody war of attrition in which the Confederacy did not figure as a real state with any legitimate humanitarian claim to existence. Southerners had become in the eyes of their opponents subhuman demons defending a reactionary order, a dark power dedicated to block the forward march of emancipatory progress. One need only read the newspaper accounts of the day to understand that this is no exaggeration. Confederate efforts to reach a settlement were thus rebuffed and 'total' war had made its lethal debut.
***********
"The history of the modern age is written largely in celebration of this disastrous shift in ethical authority. Those who oppose it are depicted as history’s villains when they lose. The million young Southern men who tolerated four years of merciless deprivation and war, convinced as they fell that they were defending their homes and families, now figure in our national story as bigoted racists who devoted their efforts to the utterly unjust defense of a repressive and anti-humanitarian status quo. Their very battle flag has become a symbol of evil."

Dr. T. H. Pickett, "War, Power, and Supremacy:
A Conservative Interpretation," Modern Age, Summer 2006, pages 200 and 204.

James Lord Pierpont (1822-1893) Confederate Hero

As Confederates marched off to defend their independence in 1861, they were stirred by such songs as “We Conquer or Die.”

The war drum is beating, prepare for the fight!
The stern, bigot Northman exults in his might.

The composer, James Pierpont, knew the enemy firsthand. Southerners would have been surprised to learn that he was a Bostonian, the son of a fanatical abolitionist! In 1863 Pierpont published another great Confederate war song, “Strike for the South.”

Strike for the South! It must never be said
that her banner was furled to the foe.
Let those stars ever shine in bright glory above,
and the pathway to victory show!

When the war came Pierpont was in Savannah, Georgia, where he worked as music director at the Unitarian church, and he joined the First Georgia Cavalry Regiment. He would share the bitterness of defeat with his adopted Southland, never returning to the North. After the war he taught in Quitman, Florida, and was organist at the Presbyterian church there. He died in Winter Haven, Florida in 1893, and at his request was buried in Savannah—far from his frigid Massachusetts birthplace.

Before the war young Pierpont had written a number of sentimental songs. In 1850 he composed a winter ballad for a Boston Sunday school entertainment. He published the sheet music in 1857. It was a bright, happy song of young people reveling in the snow-filled New England countryside. Not until the twentieth century did his tune become a Christmas favorite. Over the years its popularity grew. A Bing Crosby/Andrews Sisters recording in 1943 sold over a million discs.

This Christmas season when you hear children singing “Jingle Bells” remember the composer, James Pierpont. Here was a man who let go family and his native land that he might serve a truly noble cause—that he might “Strike for the South.”

Missouri Wildfires

The exodus of Californians fleeing recent wildfires has been characterized by TV media as, "the largest peacetime evacuation of Americans since the Civil War."

We're a little confused by their terminology, but the statement may at least be an acknowledgment that such things happened during Lincoln's War.

Non-combatants fled Charleston when that city was shelled by Federal terrorists, and Atlanta was forcibly depopulated after its capture by Billy ("War is Hell") Sherman. Women and children slept in parks and cemeteries when the boys in blue burned Columbia, and wherever the Union-savers appeared, multitudes were left homeless.

But the most horrendous of forced evacuations occurred in occupied Missouri, where Yankees were having a difficult time pacifying the population. On August 25, 1863 Brig. Gen. Thomas Ewing issued his infamous Order No. 11. Everyone–more than 20,000 civilians–living in his 3,000 square mile district had fifteen days to get out. Refugees were robbed and murdered as they departed, and their homes were torched. The devastation was so compete, fires often spreading to fields and forests, that the four counties became known as "The Burnt District."

"The order settled the border war," Ewing proudly told the Washington Post. "It was approved by Major General [John] Schofield and by President Lincoln."

Y'all, this was one war the Nazis won.

"Maybe it was hell for some of them Yankees ..."

Former slave Henry D. Jenkins of Fairfield County, South Carolina, interviewed in 1936:

"When the Yankees come, what they do? They did things they ought not to have done and left undone the things they ought to have done. Yes, that ’bout tells it. One thing you might like to hear. Mistress [Sara Howell, wife of plantation owner Joseph Howell] got all the money, the silver, the gold and the jewels, and got the well digger to hide them in the bottom of the well. Them Yankees smart. When they got there, they asked for the very things at the bottom of the well. Mistress wouldn’t tell. They held a “court of enquiry” in the yard; called slaves up, one by one, good many. Must have been a Judas ’mongst us. Soon a Yankee was let down in the well, and all that money, silver, gold, jewelry, watches, rings, brooches, knives and forks, butter-dishes, waiters, goblets, and cups was took and carried ’ way by an army that seemed more concerned ’bout stealin’, than they was ’bout the Holy War for the liberation of the poor African slave people. They took off all the horses, sheep, cows, chickens, and geese; took the seine and the fishes they caught, corn in crib, meat in smoke-house, and everything. Marse General Sherman said war was hell. It sho’ was. Maybe it was hell for some of them Yankees when they come to die and give account of the deeds they done in Sumter and Richland Counties.”

From SC Slave Narratives, vol. 14, pt. 3, pp. 23, 26; quoted in Walter Brian Cisco, War Crimes Against Southern Civilians (Gretna, LA: Pelican, 2007), pp. 185-6.

Another book we recommend: DOWNSIZING THE U.S.A.

"We believe the time has come to reconsider secession as a viable option for dealing with our own problems of big government, big military, big business, big labor, and big cities. America has become an unworkable meganation which defies central management and control ... Our states should be allowed to secede from the Union; megastates such as California, Texas, and New York should be permitted to break up; and megalopolises such as Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York should be encouraged to downsize and possibly even split with their respective states. Decentralization and devolution are pretend solutions to problems which require radical surgery, not just more political rhetoric."

Thomas H. Naylor and William H. Willimon, Downsizing the U.S.A. (page 241).

"How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him ..." I Kings 18:21

Dr. Gregory A. Boyd told of attending a Fourth of July worship service held at one American mega church. At center stage stood a cross and a huge American flag. After singing praise choruses and patriotic songs, a video was shown.

"The video closed with a scene of a silhouette of three crosses on a hill with an American flag waving in the back-ground. Majestic, patriotic music now thundered. Suddenly, four fighter jets appeared on the horizon, flew over the crosses, and then split apart. As they roared over the camera, the words "God Bless America" appeared on the screen in front of the crosses.

"The congregation responded with roaring applause, cat-calls, and a standing ovation. I saw several people wiping tears from their eyes. Indeed, as I remained frozen in my seat, I grew teary-eyed as well—but for entirely different reasons. I was struck with horrified grief.

"Thoughts raced through my mind: How could the cross and the sword have been so thoroughly fused without anyone seeming to notice? How could Jesus’ self-sacrificial death be linked with flying killing machines? How could Jesus’ people applaud tragic violence, regardless of why it happened and regardless of how they might benefit from its outcome? How could the kingdom of God be reduced to this sort of violent, nationalistic tribalism?" [From The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005, page 88.]

A foreign-exchange student from Finland, attending one South Carolina congregation's patriotic service, could only be confused about the true meaning of the Gospel. Amid militaristic flag-waving, the unintended message she received was that Christianity is the exclusive religion of America.

A musician at an Upcountry, SC church respectfully requested that he not be required to sing a hymn that glorified war and military conquest. That brother was asked to go.

At another self-proclaimed "Bible-believing" church in the SC Midlands, a family was told to leave when they declined to pledge allegiance to the US flag.

Has America become our god? What must the Creator of the universe think of such idolatry?

In their promotion of "civil religion," too many American Christians seem to assume that the Prince of Peace waves the Star Spangled Banner, as they confuse God with Uncle Sam. What can this be called except blasphemy!

"You shall have no other Gods before Me," proclaims the First Commandment (Exodus 20:3). Have we forgotten that, as Christians, our true citizenship is in heaven? (Philippians 3:20). Jesus said, "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations," (Mark 11:17) not just our own.

Individual Christians will always hold a variety of views. What we may not do is use the Savior's church to promote that which is secondary and secular. The cause of Christ is superior to all allegiances—even of loyalty to country—and we dare not erect barriers based on our own prejudices. All—regardless of nationality or political opinion—must be welcome in God's house and invited to enter His Kingdom.

The Church of Jesus Christ has a creed that has nothing to do with opinions or patriotism, and a commission to be about her Master's business, not Caesar's. Just as politics has no place in the pulpit, patriotic songs and symbols too must be left at the door.

The flag of the United States, like the banner of every other country, symbolizes that which is passing and perishable, and has no legitimate place in a Christian sanctuary.

DeRosa's new book is now available!

The framers of the Confederate Constitution were, from long experience, well aware of Washington's appetite for power, and convinced that centralized government inevitably leads to tyranny. When Southerners set up their own federal system after secession, their supreme objective was political decentralization and the rule of law (in contrast to rule by law) as protection against abuse of power. Dr. DeRosa is absolutely correct when he says, "the original and ongoing campaign against CSA principles is a ruse to augment the scope and reach of a coercive centralized government, at the expense of individual and community self determination."

Professor of political science and expert in constitutional law, DeRosa is author of the classic study The Confederate Constitution of 1861. In his new book, he goes on to make the compelling argument that truly democratic principles are to be found in the Southern model of government. If Americans are ever to regain their liberties lost at Appomattox, it will be in a return to the fundamental principles embodied in the Confederate Constitution. Bold and insightful, Redeeming American Democracy is a must read!

Henry Timrod's World Tour

One hundred and forty years ago, on October 7, 1867, Henry Timrod died in Columbia, South Carolina. He was not yet 39 years old, living in abject poverty, and his death from tuberculosis was hastened by seldom having enough to eat in post-Sherman Columbia. Two years earlier, he had lost his home and business to Sherman's arsonists. Two of his sisters, and his own 10 month old son Willie, died in a single month—additional victims of Lincoln's War. Yet when Henry Timrod died, he was arguably the finest poet in America.

Born December 8, 1828 in Charleston, educated there and at the University of Georgia, Timrod spent a decade tutoring children of plantation families. He began writing verse as a teenager, his subjects usually nature or romance. The coming of Southern independence stirred him deeply. He became widely known in February 1861 with the publication of his poem "Ethnogenesis." Others, such as "The Cotton Boll," "Charleston," "Christmas," "Carolina," and "Spring" secured his fame as "laureate of the Confederacy."

This writer first encountered Timrod's "Ode" (in honor of the Confederate dead) when a high school student in the 1960s, in California. Studying American literature in college we read many of his other poems. Yet over the years, as the blight of political correctness settled across the land, Timrod was increasingly neglected and his work began to disappear from anthologies.

In late August of last year, singer-songwriter Bob Dylan released a CD of his newest work called "Modern Times," and it soon rose to number one on the charts. Within days, out in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a disc jockey named Scott Warmuth decided to do a Google search of Dylan's lyrics. What he found was astonishing. In one song, "When the Deal Goes Down," Dylan used poetic phrases from no fewer than four Timrod poems. Warmuth discovered many more examples of Dylan "borrowing" from the Southern poet. "I told my neighbor Chris about what I had turned up regarding Bob and Timrod," remembered Warmuth, "while our kids were riding bikes in the street between our houses one Sunday afternoon. It got his dander up, and he went and wrote the New York Times a letter ..."

Reporter Motoko Rich of the Times did some research, and her article appeared on September 14, 2006; asking tongue-in-cheek, "Who's This Guy Dylan Who's Borrowing Lines From Henry Timrod?" The word was out! Quickly other papers reprinted the story, or ran their own. From London to Atlanta; Sydney, Australia to Osaka, Japan—the story of the Timrod/Dylan connection appeared in at least 42 newspapers in 18 countries. It was discussed on-line on countless thousands of websites, blogs, and forums. National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" interviewed discoverer Scott Warmuth.

Some denounced Dylan's "plagiarism" while others defended his borrowings. Someone pointed out, for what it's worth, that the word Timrod can be spelled from the letters in "Modern Times."

Sales of Timrod's poetry spiked on Amazon. One on-line reviewer said, "After all the noise about Dylan's supposed borrowing from Timrod, I thought I'd give him a look. What one discovers is thoughtful and colorful poetry of a 19th century man ... [Except for] the Dylan furor, I never would have discovered him." He gave Timrod five stars.

The real story here, and cause for rejoicing? That Henry Timrod, neglected for so long, was discovered by legions of new readers. Truly, God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform!

Secession: America's oldest tradition

What do South Carolina, Alaska, Vermont, Hawaii, and Texas have in common? Among other things, citizens in each state are working for independence. It seems that there are secessionist movements active now in no fewer than 25 American states! Most are concerned about liberties lost to the federal leviathan, and senseless wars waged by the empire. (Of course the SPLC pretends to see racism afoot, but that's how they make a living). For more, check out today's Associated Press article: Secessionists Meeting in Tennessee

The sincerest form of flattery ...

The U.S. Navy is terribly embarrassed over a San Diego barracks built in the shape of a huge swastika, and is scrambling to obscure the symbol with $600,000 worth of landscaping. It's difficult to see how its design could have been a mistake, though we hope it was no more than that and, after all, it was a government project. But it doesn't take a Google satellite image to note the striking similarities between the architecture of Hitler's Reich and Roosevelt's New Deal. As an example, above are images of the Federal Reserve Board Building, Washington, D.C.; and of the Reich Chancellery, Berlin. Now that's embarrassing!

"We must seize the torch from their hands"

We are upholding the great principles which our fathers bequeathed to us; and if we should succeed, and become, as we shall, the dominant nation of this continent, we shall perpetuate and diffuse the very liberty for which Washington bled, and which the heroes of the Revolution achieved. We are not revolutionists; we are resisting revolution. We are upholding the true doctrines of the Federal Constitution. We are conservative. Our success is the triumph of all that has been considered established in the past. We can never become aggressive; we may absorb, but we can never invade for conquest any neighboring State. The peace of the world is secured if our arms prevail. We shall have a Government that acknowledges God, that reverences right, and that makes law supreme. We are therefore fighting, not for ourselves alone, but, when the struggle is rightly understood, for the salvation of this whole continent. It is a noble cause in which we are engaged ... The glorious inheritance which our fathers left us we must never betray. The hopes with which they died, and which buoyed their spirits in the last conflict, of making their country a blessing to the world, we must not permit to be unrealized. We must seize the torch from their hands, and transmit it with increasing brightness to distant generations.

From "Our Danger and Our Duty," a tract written in 1862 by Rev. James Henley Thornwell and distributed to the people and the armed forces of the Confederate States.

Soldiers' Monument, Santa Fe, New Mexico

How could the capital of a state be named "Holy Faith"? Surely some sensitive soul in multicultural America is offended, right? We'll save that subject for another time.

Our topic today is the monument that stands in the center of the historic Square in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Erected shortly after the War for Southern Independence, the obelisk recognizes the service of U.S. troops at the battles of Valverde and Glorieta Pass, where they "fought with rebels." It is said that the word "rebels," used here to describe Southern soldiers, is the only place where that word appears on a monument. At least that was the story told in 1880.

The monument goes on to hail those blue-clad warriors who fell "in battles with savage Indians." In 1973 a young man wearing a ponytail took it upon himself to chisel off the offending word, "savage."

His assumption was, of course, that in less enlightened times all Indians were labeled "savage," and such bigotry must be eradicated. It has since been pointed out that in the 1860s Southwest, the term "savage Indians" applied specifically to tribes such as the Apache and Navajo, not to the settled Pueblo Indians, who were often at war with the nomadic "savages" themselves.

But wait a minute! Should they be calling Southern patriots a bunch of "rebels"? Now that's offensive!

As strange as it may seem to us today, opposition to slavery in antebellum America was based largely on racism.

Most of those marching in the anti-slavery crusade wanted that institution kept out of the western territories for the simple reason they wanted no blacks living there. Rhode Island senator James Burrill asked rhetorically if the West should be settled by “free white men,” or “by slaves, and blackened with their continually increasing progeny?” David Wilmot, congressman from Pennsylvania famous for his proviso banning slavery from territory acquired in the Mexican War, expressed the same view. “The negro race,” complained the abolitionist, “already occupy enough of this fair continent.” “All the unoccupied territory,” said Republican Horace Greeley, “shall be preserved for the benefit of the white Caucasian race—a thing which cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery.” Abraham Lincoln shared that widespread prejudice. “The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories,” he said in 1854, speaking of America’s western lands. “We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them.”

Years earlier, Alexis de Tocqueville encountered this attitude during his travels in America. “Race prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists,” the Frenchman wrote, “and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

True to his observation, the Illinois Constitution of 1848 required that laws be enacted to “prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state.” “When we say that all men are created equal,” proclaimed Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, “we do not mean that every man in organized society has the same rights. We don’t tolerate that in Illinois.”

The final solution to the nation’s race problem, according to Lincoln? The peaceful deportation of every black from American soil, a dream he said would be “a glorious consummation.”

Sound familiar, compatriots?