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.

""Now please look away so I can go back to scanning the horizon for roadkill ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’
"One of my coworkers in the work campaign has threatened to play Karl Marksman, a ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’
"Well, the CoS one that's already filled up was one that had coworker gamers come ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’
"Sounds like you are thinking about it well. It does sound plausible, and a scam ..."

LBCF, No. 181: ‘Meet the Steeles’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • stly92

    ” 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.”

    Geez-us, that is so true. He could be talking about today. Someone check, are we sure Twain didn’t have a time machine? Or did he maybe go snooping through american history files in the computer that time he was briefly about the starship Enterprise?

  • DoctorChimRichalds

    Well, give him points for consistency, at least.

  • hidden_urchin

    Espousing, and preferably having, views such as Mauch’s should be political suicide. It says unlovely things about America that this is not yet so.

  • Soylent H

    This part struck me the same way.  And I have never heard a coherent rebuttal.  All I know is, I’m increasingly tired of those piously proclaiming themselves the most moral among us, dropping in “at the tail of the procession.” so many times.  I want to say every time, but that’s probably not true.

    What really irritates me, is he said this over 100 years ago, and people just whistled quietly on by the statement, and carried on as if a huge and self-evident hypocrisy in christian practice had not just been revealed.  It opens a huge can of worms, I guess.  But still, to be even remotely intellectually consistent on the issue, any church needs to have a formal policy on what was cultural truth and what is timeless truth, an acknowledgement that sometimes cultural truth is mistaken for timeless truth for long, and unfortunate periods of time.  And then have a method for challenging those definitions, which preferably would involve participation by the church body, or at least be done in a fully transparent manner.  I just don’t understand how they can live like pharisees, but without ever defining the laws they so adamantly enforce.  Which, of course, if after I wonder why they choose to live like pharisees, instead of the god-made-man they worship (I used to, but I’ve had enough of organized religion, for basically these reasons).

    As for the time machine, I thought the same thing except in relation to his description of the pre-solar system.  More to the point, I don’t think it’s so much that he had a time machine, as we’ve just been stuck in time.

  • Twain has always been my favorite student of the human (and in particular the American) condition.

  • This country already lionizes Wehrmacht leaders. They go by the names of Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc.




    Someone is desperate to completely rewrite the Civil War.

  • Ben English

     My favorite part is when he calls them Marxists.

  • Damanoid

    Loy March desperately needs to be horse-whipped.

  • Damanoid

     Ahem.  Loy Mauch desperately needs to be horse-whipped.

    What the hell kind of name is “Loy Mauch,” anyway?  What alien dimension is he from?  Was he summoned here by accident?  Did his swamp ancestors breed with each other so unhealthily that even their names became twisted and deformed?

  • depizan

     Yeah.  Does leave one pretty speechless.

    The guy seems to have formed his own unique reality.

  • Joshua

    they can live like pharisees

    You mean, worshipping in synagogues, preferring study over animal sacrifice, regarding the Old Testament prophets as scripture, understanding scripture by means of reasoned and opinionated debate, saying things like “”What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow”, that kind of thing?

    Jesus’ rants about Pharisees by themselves don’t give an accurate picture even of Jesus’ impression of their movement, let alone an accurate impression of the movement itself. Until you study the religious context of the time, it’s not evident how much he drew from them.

    Using the word Pharisee as a derogatory term is anti-Semitic, as all modern Judaism is descended from them. Please stop it.

  • vsm

    Dissing Sadducees is still cool, right?

  • everstar

     As my favorite Marxist said, “I’d horsewhip you if I had a horse.”

    As for Mr. Mauch, the best I can do is a disgusted headshake now and primal scream therapy later.

  • So lemee get this straight:

    The leaders of the Union in the US Civil War… were tied to a movement that didn’t begin until 60 odd years later?  And were ALSO communists, another movement that hadn’t really come into it’s own for another 50 years or so?  Not to mention the obvious fact that Fascism and Communism are *polar opposites* – not that that’s stopped these idiots before.

    But seriously this is a spectacular breed of stupidity.  One has to deliberately try to become that dumb.  That there are enough people who’ve deliberately done so in order for this cretin to have ever been elected to office in this country is beyond me to accept or comprehend.

  • Soylent H

    I was unthinkingly parroting what I had heard in christian churches in my youth in attempt to point out their hypocrisy.  You’re right, it’s an unfair slur to the religious tradition as a whole, but one that is unfortunately common in christianity.  I agree that using Pharisees as shorthand for “church leaders who value rules over compassionate principles” is sloppy and inaccurate, and unfairly demonizes an entire religious tradition over one incident.  It’s not important to me to use the term, I will find another way of saying that.  My complaint is with religious hypocrites in general, not the Jewish tradition in particular.  My apologies.

  • Hilary

    Joshua – Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    Let’s see, what would it be like to follow the teaching of the Pharisees, the REAL Pharisees, the Perushim, who still are quoted in living synegoges today.  Quoted and loved for things like this:

    “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to others.  The rest [of the Law] is commentary, go and study” Hillel, Talmud Shabbat 31a

    “The world is based on three things: on Torah, on worship, on deeds of lovingkindness.” Simeon the Righteous, Avot 1:2

    “Rabbi Joshua, seeing the great Temple in ruins, lamented that the place where Israel found atonment for her sins was laid to waste.  Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai comforted him, saying ‘We have a means of atonement equally good – deeds of loving kindness. Hosea 6:6 It is steadfast love I require, not sacrifice.’ ” Avot deRabbi Natan

    “Rabbi Akiva said, ‘The greatest principle of the Torah is this: Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)  How much did G-d love us to make us in His image, how much more did He love us to let us know we are created in the divine image!”  BTW, R. Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans in 135 CE.

    “Do not be like servents who serve their master in hope of reward – rather be like servents who serve their master without thought of reward” Antigonus of Socho, Avot 1:3. IE do what is right because it is what needs to be done, not because of a hope for heveanly reward.

    “Find yourself a teacher, get yourself a friend, and give everybody the benefit of the doubt.” Joshua ben Perachiah, Avot 1:6

    “Be a disciple of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, love people and drawing them near the Torah.”  Hillel, Avot 1:12

    ‘The world is sustained by three things: by justice, by truth, and by peace.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel, Avot 1:18

    “Be careful in reciting the Shema and Prayers.  When you pray, never let your prayer be routine but let it be a plea for compassion and grace from the Blessed Presence, as it is said ‘For G-d is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness, and repents of the evil (Joel 2:13).” Rabbi Simeon, Avot 2:13

    Two more –

    For Tikkun Olam, the redemptive work of repareing our broken world: “You are not expected to complete the task, but neither are you free to abandon it.”  Rabbi Tarfon, Avot 2:16

    “The sword comes into the world because of justice delayed and justice denied.” Avot 5:8.

    I have a copy of the Pirke Avot, the Wisdom of the Jewish Sages, and I am not afraid to use it.  Soylent, THESE are the words of the Jewish leaders during the 1st and 2nd centures CE, and codified the same time as the Gospels.  This is a SMALL SAMPLE of their wisdom and ethics.  You can find a copy of the Pirke Avot at any reasonable large bookstore, and it is very easy to find a copy on line.

    We would ALL do well to live as Pharisees, and I am proud to be their spiritual descendant.

    As for this guy Loy Mauch . . . Fred does a good job shining light on cockroaches. Knowing they are there is the first step in protecting yourself and decontaminating the kitchen.


  • Hilary

    Crap.  I can’t spell – I know it’s synagogue, not synegoge. 
    Sorry ’bout that.


  • Hilary


    Our posts crossed – I appreciate your apology to Joshua.  I totally hear you about religious hypocrites, it’s just that I’ve been studying the Gospels and the Pirke Avot side by side recently and you hit a nerve.  If you like I could post what the the Perushim have to say about themselves regarding hypocracy; they’re not spairing of themselves.  There is a difference between calling out religious hypocracy from within an institution you love, which is what I think Jesus was trying to do, versus ascorched earth condemnation of a rival political party, which is what’s recorded in the Gospels. 

    But there is *so*much*blood* on those words, used vindictivly against Jews for so many hundreds of years that we’re still a little defensive. I can recognize using the common cultural shorthand of ‘pharisee’ for ‘religious hypocrite as as not intentionally, deliberately anti-semetic.  Still, you would do well to learn a little about them, from their own POV and their own writings.


  • Joshua

    Cool with me.

    I think if Jesus was preaching today, he’d eagerly use pretty much the same rants about hypocritical Christian leaders, with perfect justification IMHO.

  • Soylent H

    Honestly, it was in no way intentionally, or deliberately anti-semitic.  I was using it as cultural short-hand carelessly.  I had never really connected the Pharisees of the gospels to modern Judaism consciously, which is my big oversight.  It is obvious to me now that I don’t know enough about pharisees then or how they evolved into modern judaism to talk about them at all.  I understand why you would be defensive, considering the history of christians demonizing jews especially, and I apologize again for using the term so carelessly.

  • TheFaithfulStone

    Hey, now.  Mauch is from the hills.  Swamp folk’d be dead in what passes for ground if they do much talking like that.

  • Joshua


    I don’t think there are any Sadducees around these days, but then I used to think that about Samaritans, so go figure.

    The lack of a temple would be a problem, presumably.

  • Nirrti

    If Loy Mauch thinks slavery’s so darn peachy and wants it back, all I can say in response is “You first”.

  • Joshua

    I suppose I should mention at this point that despite my name, I’m not Jewish ethnically or (obviously if you have been reading my comments) religiously.

    In my post above, I’m playing the part of Terry Pratchett’s Campaign for Equal Heights.

  • It’s one thing to praise slavery, it’s another to say it’s not a crime against humanity that we’ve made it out to be– particularly in a country where federal law has enslaved more free men under military conscription for wars to expand empires,  than ever under chattel slavery.  This is quite a convenient hypocrisy by which scoundrels take refuge in patriotism, with the unbridled arrogance of trumpeting freedom from their high-borne elephantine snouts.
    Indeed, many nations practice slavery or its equivalent outright, and neither the United States or Untied Nations utters a peep– on the contrary, Sudan is the UN’s appointed leader of its Human Rights Council, and yet it practices slavery to date. However would not be “defending slavery” to rail against the suggestion of invading Sudan to free their slaves, but simply respecting the fundamental concept of national sovereignty vs. crusading imperialism.

    Likewise, secession by a sovereign state is not “treason,” any more than if Mexico were to secede from NAFTA– contrary to the revisionist history of the post-Lincoln regime whereby Lincoln claimed that a mystical nameless nation named “The Union” sprang into being even while the states were still colonies of the nation of Great Britain– and equally derived national authority over them by Lincoln’s absurd gobbledegook claimes regarding the simple terms of military alliance between the thirteen free, sovereign and independent states they declared themselves to be.

    Thus, armchair court-historians may get a sneer-gasm from stuffing their shirts with well-worn lies of arroance, but they are simply proving themselves nth-generation useful idiots who insist on the modern-day equivalent of mocking Copernical heliocentrism while flattering the emperor’s robe.

  • Damanoid

    I was, of course, referring to hill swamps.  Very common terrain feature in dimensions of chaos and torment.

    Legend has it that if you say his name three times without laughing in front of a mirror, Loy Mauch will appear and attempt to use his agonizer on you.

  • Hilary

    Apology accepted.  If you want to learn more, I recommend “Pirke Avot: Wisdom of the Jewish Sages” by Chaim Stern.  It’s what I’ve got in front of me, and easily findable at Amazon. 

    In a nutshell, of the different groups of Jews back then, the Essenes retreated to the desert didn’t believe in marriage or sex which doesn’t make for a long-lasting group.  The Sadducess were the Temple Priests and colluded with the Romans as a puppet rule, and didn’t last beyond the distruction of the Temple.  The Zealots were violent revolutionaries who killed other Jews not revolutionary enough for them and went down fighting with the Temple’s distruction. That left the Pharisees, who stressed worship, study, and good deeds as replacements for Temple sacrifice.  Because they had the flexibility in the Oral Law, the traditions of interpretation, they were able to face the challenge of surviving after the Temples destruction (70 ce) and the destruction of the nation of Israel (135 to 1948 ce).

    Frankly, most Christians today, even most Jews, don’t always make the connection. We study the Pirke Avot, it’s got some awesome sayings, but we call them Sages and Rabbis, not Pharisees.  Like I said, I’ve been studying it a lot lately, and was ready to go off at the first chance. 

    How did a post about a slavery apologist turn into a lecture about 1st century CE Judaism?  Shall we get back to the topic at hand? 


  • Have you read the Dred Scott decision?

    The South cheered it, and nary a fuck was given for state sovereignty with that decision.

  • Joshua

    Thank you, Trainer, it’s for comments like yours that I read the internet. Full-on, rabid ranting that barely makes sense.

  • Albanaeon

     Yep, that darn Marx and his time machine…

    Head shake.

  • Joshua

    How did a post about a slavery apologist turn into a lecture about 1st century CE Judaism?  Shall we get back to the topic at hand?

    You must be new here.

  • Morilore

    It’s one thing to “praise slavery,” it’s another entirely to simply deny that it’s the crime against humanity that we’ve made it out to be– particularly in a country where federal law has enslaved more free men under military conscription for wars to expand empires,  than ever under chattel slavery.

    This is an absolutely atrocious comparison and if you are intelligent enough to type this faux-intellectual hot air then you are intelligent enough to realize how utterly appalling this comparison is.

  • Trixie_Belden

    Yeah, How about that Fugitive Slave Act?  The south did not give a flying f*ck if you were a citizen of another “sovereign state” that did not allow  slavery – if you helped a slave in your own “sovereign state” escape from bondage southerners were perfectly content to see the hammer of federal law brought down on you with serious jail terms and huge fines.

  • Joshua

    He kept it hidden in his beard.

  • David Newgreen

     To be fair, Marx did wrote extensively about the Civil War while it was ongoing, and was a strong supporter of the Union and Lincoln.

    Of course, that doesn’t make the Union generals Marxists any more than Tsar Alexander’s support of the North made them monarchists… it’s just that the Southern slave system was so repulsive that pretty much every outside observer condemned it, regardless of ideology.

  • vsm

    I think it’s  inaccurate to say Communism didn’t come on to its own until the beginning of the 20th century. The First Internationale was founded in the 1860’s, and the Paris Commune briefly took over Paris in 1871. Marx really was a fervent supporter of the Union, and even wrote Lincoln a letter of congratulation on his re-election. He got a letter back, too:

  •  @yahoo-IEWAISGY32IO3USIHJFV27FOT4:disqus : Gosh, you sure do write purty.

    Four notes.

    1. Even if it’s true that the number of people conscripted to serve in wars can be meaningfully compared to the number of people indentured to serve in chattel slavery (which you’ve made no attempt to demonstrate, merely referred to), that’s not an argument in favor of chattel slavery. It’s an argument against military conscription.

    2. I agree that chattel slavery in other countries is bad, too.

    3. You don’t quite come out and say this, but reading between the lines you seem to be suggesting that the political and economic relationship between the Northern and Southern U.S. states pre-Civil War is analogous to the relationship between Germany and Poland pre-WorldWar. This seems absurd on its face.

    4. You may be right that the Union manufactured a level of outrage against Confederate slavery that would not have naturally emerged from the white population, and did so in part to justify its desire to avoid the secession of the Southern states, much as the U.S. in 2000 manufactured a level of outrage against “Islamofascist terrorism” to justify military activity it wanted to pursue for other reasons. That doesn’t make chattel slavery (or terrorism) any better a practice.

  • If you get your ethics from popularity vs. principle.

  • If you get your ethics from popularity vs. principle.

  • Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” since the twisted and cherry-picked the letter of the law to their own ends against its original intent; however our Lincoln-lovers and Confederacy-haters today do likewise in condemning deprivations of liberty of which they personally disapprove, while praising and boasting of their pet versions like conscription, jury-service, compulsory school-attendance and income-taxes.

    Nothing worse than evil with 2 faces.

  •  Yeah, takes a lot of guts to flatter the emperor’s robe and curse the vanquished.
    Vae victus!

  • P J Evans

    in a country where federal law has enslaved more free men under military conscription for wars

    You seem to misunderstand military conscription. It wasn’t slavery for the draftees – they were in for a minimum amount of time, or the duration. That was how it worked in the Civil War, too.

  • Well they all lived by the following principles, as noted in Lincoln’s writing:

    a federated state we understand a league of sovereign states
    which band together of their own free will, on the strength
    of their sovereignty; ceding to the totality that share of
    their particular sovereign rights which makes possible and
    guarantees the existence of the common federation.

    practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely
    to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least
    of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming
    part of the individual states are concerned, there can be
    no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary,
    many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union
    in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual
    states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller
    and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative
    reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which
    previously had not and could not have possessed any state
    sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that
    had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which
    formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive
    special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual
    territories are not only in keeping with the whole character
    of this federation of states, but above all with the size
    of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope
    of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American
    Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty,
    but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed
    rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.

    “It might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the
    present movement at the South be called “secession” or “rebellion.” The
    movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they
    knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude
    by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people
    possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order,
    and as much pride in and reverence for the history and Government of
    their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They
    knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these
    strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious
    debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism,
    which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps through all
    the incidents to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism
    itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the National
    Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully , withdraw from the
    Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State. The
    little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just
    cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, is too thin to
    merit any notice.

    With rebellion thus sugar coated they have been drugging the public
    mind of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length
    they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against
    the Government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the
    farcical pretense of taking their State out of the Union who could have
    been brought to no such thing the day before .

    This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from
    the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy
    pertaining to a State—to each State of our Federal Union. Our States
    have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union
    by the Constitution, no one of them ever having been a State out of the
    Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast
    off their British colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into
    the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas; and
    even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State.
    The new ones only took the designation of States on coming into the
    Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the
    Declaration of Independence. Therein the “United Colonies” were declared
    to be “free and independent States;” but even then the object plainly
    was not to declare their independence of one another or of the Union,
    but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual
    action before, at the time, and afterwards abundantly show. The express
    plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the
    Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be
    perpetual is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in
    substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical
    omnipotence of “State rights,” asserting a claim of power to lawfully
    destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the “sovereignty” of the
    States, but the word even is not in the National Constitution, nor, as
    is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a “sovereignty”
    in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it
    “a political community without a political superior”? Tested by this, no
    one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty; and even Texas
    gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she
    acknowledged the Constitution of the United States and the laws and
    treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution to
    be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in
    the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this,
    they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not
    themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By
    conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of
    independence and liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the
    States, and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally some
    dependent colonies made the Union, and in turn the Union threw off their
    old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are. Not one
    of them ever had a State constitution independent of the Union. Of
    course it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their
    constitutions before they entered the Union, nevertheless dependent upon
    and preparatory to coming into the Union.

    Unquestionably the States have the powers and rights reserved to them
    in and by the National Constitution; but among these surely are not
    included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive, but
    at most such only as were known in the world at the time as
    governmental powers; and certainly a power to destroy the Government
    itself had never been known as a governmental—as a merely administrative
    power. This relative matter of national power and State rights, as a
    principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality .
    Whatever concerns the whole should be confided to the whole—to the
    General Government—while whatever concerns only the State should be left
    exclusively to the State. This is all there is of original principle
    about it. Whether the National Constitution in defining boundaries
    between the two has applied the principle with exact accuracy is not to
    be questioned. We are all bound by that defining without question.”

    Nevermind the following statements by the Founders Jefferson and Madison:

    “Resolved, That the several States
    composing, the United States of America, are not united on the
    principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but
    that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the
    United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general
    government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain
    definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of
    right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general
    government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative,
    void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a
    State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself,
    the other party: that the government created by this compact was not
    made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated
    to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the
    Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other
    cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an
    equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode
    and measure of redress.”

    “The other position involved in this branch of the resolution,
    namely, “that the states are parties to the Constitution,”
    or compact, is, in the judgment of the committee,
    equally free from objection. It is indeed true that the term
    “states” is sometimes used in a vague sense, and sometimes
    in different senses, according to the subject to which it is
    applied. Thus it sometimes means the separate sections of
    territory occupied by the political societies within each;
    sometimes the particular governments established by those
    societies; sometimes those societies as organized into those
    particular governments; and lastly, it means the people
    composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign
    capacity. Although it might be wished that the perfection
    of language admitted less diversity in the signification
    of the same words, yet little inconvenience is produced by
    it, where the true sense can be collected with certainty
    from the different applications. In the present instance,
    whatever different construction of the term “states,” in the
    resolution, may have been entertained, all will at least concur
    in that last mentioned; because in that sense the Constitution
    was submitted to the “states;” in that sense the
    “states” ratified it; and in that sense of the term “states,”
    they are consequently parties to the compact from which
    the powers of the federal government result. … However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department
    is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms
    of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort
    must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities
    of the other departments of the government; not
    in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional
    compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments,
    hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis,
    the delegation of judicial power would annul the
    authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department
    with the others in usurped powers, might subvert
    forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful
    remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to
    preserve. ”

    But as William Feather wrote, a single fact can spoil a most interesting argument.
    And the first quote above is from “Mein Kampf.”


    Nothing worse than evil with 2 faces.

    In your opinion, which of the following caused more suffering?
    a) chattel slavery
    b) jury service
    c) compulsory school attendance
    d) income tax
    e) none; the suffering they caused is roughly equivalent

    In your opinion, is it always hypocritical to treat things that cause more suffering differently from things that cause less suffering?

  • Morilore

    Jesus condemned the Scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” since the twisted and cherry-picked the letter of the law to their own ends against its original intent; however our Lincoln-lovers and Confederacy-haters today do likewise in condemning deprivations of liberty of which they personally disapprove, while praising and boasting of their pet versions like conscription, jury-service, compulsory school-attendance and income-taxes.

    Jury-service?  Compulsory school attendance?  Income taxes?

    These are somehow comparable to human chattel slavery?

    Are you thirteen years old or something?

  • Joshua

    Yeah! Down with school! I reed okay muchly! Jury service: worse than working in the cotton fields! And the pay is worse! All those conscripted soldiers in Afghanistan! Oh, the humanity! All tax is Satan!

    You go! Tell it like it is.

  • Morilore

    boring wall of text

    did not read lol

  • Actually Marx was a Lincolnist:


    We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a
    large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword
    of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death
    to Slavery.

    From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen
    of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the
    destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the
    dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts
    should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp
    of the slave driver?

    When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for
    the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed
    Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one
    great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration
    of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European
    revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution,
    with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained
    at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery
    to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great
    problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed
    property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working
    classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship
    of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning,
    that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general
    holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor,
    with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake
    in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere
    they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton
    crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters
    — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to
    the good cause.

    While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North,
    allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered
    and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative
    of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master,
    they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their
    European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier
    to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

    The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of
    Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so
    the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider
    it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln,
    the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through
    the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction
    of a social world.

    “Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the
    Central Council:

    …Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany….”

    –Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America

    Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
    January 28, 1865

  • Morilore

    Good for Karl Marx!

  •  It beats “Barack Obama.”