Mark Twain shreds Republican Loy Mauch

Two recent posts seem to have collided.

Rep. Loy Mauch is one of three Republican incumbents in the Arkansas legislature who just got cut off from the state party’s campaign funds on account of publicly praising slavery.

I mentioned earlier today that Mauch is a Neo-Confederate loon. Jim Burroway has more on Mauch at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Here is the Republican legislator in 2003:

Nowhere in the Holy Bible have I found a word of condemnation for the operation of slavery, Old or New Testament. If slavery was so bad, why didn’t Jesus, Paul or the prophets say something?

This country already lionizes Wehrmacht leaders. They go by the names of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. These Marxists not only destroyed the Constitution they were sworn to uphold, but apostatized the word of God. Either these depraved infidels or the Constitution and Scriptures are in error. I’m more persuaded by the word of God.

And here’s Mauch in 2009:

If slavery were so God-awful, why didn’t Jesus or Paul condemn it, why was it in the Constitution and why wasn’t there a war before 1861?

The South has always stood by the Constitution and limited government. When one attacks the Confederate Battle Flag, he is certainly denouncing these principles of government as well as Christianity.

Yes, nothing says Jesus like treason in defense of slavery.

Burroway notes that most American Christians — even in the South — no longer share Loy Mauch’s fondness for slavery:

Most Christians have accepted the former position — including the Southern Baptists — even if they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge what that means for the principle of biblical inerrancy.

Which brings us back to yesterday’s post on Mark Twain and his essay, “Bible Teaching and Religious Practice.” I’m happy for the excuse to quote again from that essay, from Twain’s incisive section on slavery. I’m less happy, though, that quoting this turns out to be so timely:

The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession – and take the credit of the correction. As she will presently do in this instance.

Christian England supported slavery and encouraged it for two hundred and fifty years, and her church’s consecrated ministers looked on, sometimes taking an active hand, the rest of the time indifferent. England’s interest in the business may be called a Christian interest, a Christian industry. She had her full share in its revival after a long period of inactivity, and [this] revival was a Christian monopoly; that is to say, it was in the hands of Christian countries exclusively. English parliaments aided the slave traffic and protected it; two English kings held stock in slave-catching companies. The first regular English slave hunter — John Hawkins, of still revered memory — made such successful havoc, on his second voyage, in the matter of surprising and burning villages, and maiming, slaughtering, capturing, and selling their unoffending inhabitants, that his delighted queen conferred the chivalric honor of knighthood on him — a rank which had acquired its chief esteem and distinction in other and earlier fields of Christian effort. The new knight, with characteristic English frankness and brusque simplicity, chose as his device the figure of a negro slave, kneeling and in chains. Sir John’s work was the invention of Christians, was to remain a bloody and awful monopoly in the hands of Christians for a quarter of a millennium, was to destroy homes, separate families, enslave friendless men and women, and break a myriad of human hearts, to the end that Christian nations might be prosperous and comfortable, Christian churches be built, and the gospel of the meek and merciful Redeemer be spread abroad in the earth; and so in the name of his ship, unsuspected but eloquent and clear, lay hidden prophecy. She was called The Jesus.

But at last in England, an illegitimate Christian rose against slavery. It is curious that when a Christian rises against a rooted wrong at all, he is usually an illegitimate Christian, member of some despised and bastard sect. There was a bitter struggle, but in the end the slave trade had to go — and went. The Biblical authorization remained, but the practice changed.

"Those too, I suppose."

Sunday favorites
"NASA's new planet-hunting satellite has taken its first image using only one of its four ..."

Sunday favorites
"Be sure to learn what to do in case both pilot and copilot are Christians ..."

LBCF, No. 185: ‘Jesus met the ..."
"I don't know how I missed this news story from a few days ago in ..."

Sunday favorites

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • SkyknightXi

    (Tripwire warning: abuse mention)

    It’s true that I skimmed over quite a bit of the latter portion of this thread, but I wouldn’t be surprised if part of the reason Trainer deemed trespass of sovereignty, even to dispel something as monstrous as slavery, as Inherently Bad is because they think that vengeance belongs only to God (remember where they said flat-out, early on, that if you think you know more than Jesus, you’re wrong?). In other words, one has no right to break international law even to avenge injustice, because God has that coming anyway. As though the point were to avenge the preceding slavery, rather than interdict its continuation.

    And yet…I wonder about the scales ones like Trainer would use. Some forms of anarchism (typically with a right-libertarian slant) regard one’s personal property as sovereign of the deedholder. I’m worried that I’m a little too far down the slippery slope (to them, at least), but would it be permissible in such ones’ eyes to round up a posse to forcibly enter a home and rescue someone who was unequivocally suffering physical or otherwise abuse? It’s the old problem of delayed justice being a form of denied justice. And really, with the particular theological conceit in the above paragraph, God is doing an amazing job of denying justice. (And while it’s probably playing semantics, a God properly above criticism like Trainer suggests can be seen as yokeless. Or, to translate “yokeless” into the Hebrew…BELIAL.)

    Then again…I wouldn’t be surprised if Trainer was (thinking themselves to be, at least) concerned with breach of personal sovereignty. The quandary in question is “two wrongs don’t make a right”. Conscription, whether military or jury, is arguably a trespass of personal sovereignty, in that you’re prevented from doing what you originally intended to do, and these aren’t always freely chosen responsibilites (well…responsibilities you’re willing to get foisted on you at a few months’ notice). So I wonder if, to Trainer, attacking the Confederacy to dispel slavery was actually an even worse crime than southern slavery, by compounding at least two sovereignty breaches to the Confederacy’s one–breaching the South’s national sovereignty by invasion and regime change, and breaching the North’s citizens’ personal sovereignty by conscription, and suspension of habeas corpus. Oddly, though, this sounds a little like the philosophical difference between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Theravada says that one should focus on one’s own attainment of Nirvana, while Mahayana thinks one should forgo that last step in favor of helping everyone else attain Nirvana first, even if it means staying in Samsara for more time. Mahayana thinks Theravada is being selfish. Theravada (probably) thinks Mahayana is just making things more difficult with everyone because the wide-range benevolence “just” accrues more positive kharma, rather than neutralizing kharma outright (positive kharma=still on Samsara, even if it is in the more deva-like incarnations). That is, at least from Mahayana’s perspective, Theravada thinks agape is self-defeating; one should not succor the world, and in the process get IT stuck in the agape trap, but merely withdraw from it. Everyone doing that will end Samsara as a whole much quicker than Mahayana agape ever would. (Theravada Buddhists reading this are now commanded to correct the errors preceding.)

    Mapping this to sovereignty/free market precepts, trying to fix problems in outside sovereignties just creates an agape trap that further undermines sovereignty, and with it the sense of security (q.v. what happens if you’re doing something that can’t really be said to wound anyone, but someone STILL thinks is a grave breach of morality. Basically, slippery slope concerns.). The belief that you’re permitted to intervene for the motive of agape is thought to actually make things MORE parlous. In other words, when ethics and morality collide, one ought ALWAYS to side with ethics. The conceit seems to be that morality is subjective and so not completely dependable, but ethics is objective, and so completely dependable. (Never mind that it looks a little like Trainer thinks ethics are the One True Morality…) In an odd sense, intervening agape could be seen as actually SELFISH here. True respect and humility are seen as accepting (fatalistically, if you ask me…) that one can only do right with oneself and those closest to them. Worrying about the world when it’s not actively affecting you is ruinous, agape self-contradictory; only storge, eros, and philia are truly acceptable to act upon. Hence, laissez-faire–anything further is an agape trap, whether economically or politically. I have a hunch this also explains early 20th-century isolationism.

  • EllieMurasaki
    Texans have a “different feeling about independence,” Perry told the group.

    “When we came into the nation in 1845, we were a republic, we were a stand-alone nation,” the governor can be heard saying. “And one of the deals was, we can leave anytime we want. So we’re kind of thinking about that again.”

    I don’t know where he got that idea but I certainly did not invent it. The five-states thing comes from the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States:

    New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

  • erikagillian

    Oh, so thank your lucky stars, you’ve got protection
    Walk the line and never mind the cost
    And don’t wonder who them lawmen was protectin’
    When they nailed the Savior to the cross

    ‘Cause the law is for protection of the people
    Rules are rules and any fool can see
    We don’t need no riddle speakin’ prophets
    Scarin’ decent folks like you and me, no siree

    Kris Kristofferson, The Law is for Protection of the People

  • Consumer Unit 5012


      I wonder if this trainer jaggoff would be fine if his home state were to open a deathcamp

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio springs instantly to mind for some reason. 

    (Seriously, why is that godawful thug still in office?)

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    As for the ‘Texas Secession” thing, here’s my go-to reply:

    “Houston, We Have a Solution”
    (Warning: very rude to Texans.)