01/24/2009
From: D. F. Whipple
Re: Patrick Cleburne’s Blog: More Agree: Lincoln Bad Example For Obama
With all due respect for Cleburne’s deeply held convictions, his recent pieces on Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee [VDARE .com – actually by Mike Scruggs] are reminiscent of the old "fire eaters" who ultimately attacked U. S. Fort Sumter in 1861.
The American Civil War, led by General Lee who rebelled against his country and his West Point colleagues by waging a fight of horrific costs, was a crude way to settle the disputes of the era.
Cleburne’s blogs are revisionist and lack nuance. Many historians have concluded that the war was, in reality, fought over slavery, even though people didn’t realize it at the time.
The Civil War’s moral and political underpinning stretched back to the Magna Carta and abolitionist-minded Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine and John Adams.
Lincoln’s views were complex, as he sought abolitionist support. And Lee wrote in his letters that he considered black slavery, however repulsive, was nevertheless part of a wise, merciful Providence. Politics motivated Lincoln — but Lee was no saint.
If the South had won, we'd likely have a post-apartheid state in North America. Many white Southerners would have fled their homes for the North and Midwest.
Mass immigration similarly sets us up for an apartheid-like situation.
That leads me to my point: what does VDARE.COM hope to accomplish, other than divide and discredit our movement by dredging up an old Anglo war?
Whipple, who worked on Wall Street for 11 years, earned a B.A. at Washington and Lee University and a M.A. and M.B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania. His third novel, Dasha, is available here. A previous Whipple letter about encouraging immigrants to go home is here.
Patrick Cleburne replies:
I am sorry to disagree with D.F. Whipple, whose novel Snooker Glen was an elegant appreciation of the damage done to America by the modern immigration deluge. But literature is literature and history, history: the latter deals with facts and reasoned argument. I cannot see, for instance, how Thomas DiLorenzo’s analysis of Lincoln’s First Inaugural can be refuted. Lincoln promised the South to take no action over slavery, but to attack them if they rejected the imposition of predatory tariffs. Then he did.
To some degree it can be legitimate for historians to infer reasons for events other than what the participants believed: but not to deny and indeed repress what they actually thought. I contend that the reason "many historians" prefer to substitute slavery as a cause is because unleashing such a disaster on the nation for purposes of squalid financial expropriation would, in the eyes of most today, put 1861-5 on the same moral plane as the Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars.
I have my own mega-cause view of the Civil War — which covers the subsequent historiography. I contend it was about whether a founding-stock people in possession of their territory — in the words of the Bonnie Blue Flag
"…a band of brothers,
native to the soil"
(Sound!)
had the right to act in their own interests, as judged by them. Lincoln’s answer was No. The Lincoln Cultists scream HELL NO! That is what the Neocon lynching of Trent Lott was all about. And why I write about Civil War issues. It is another example of the anathematization strategy that Peter Brimelow called in Alien Nation "Hitler’s Revenge".
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: Ann Corcoran
In its January 20th post, Immigration Daily wrote:
"All this has led to the anti-immigrationists gleefully crowing that 'the outlook for [CIR] is so bleak that even Obama’s immigration transition team — two law professors, Tino Cuellar of Stanford University and Georgetown’s Alexander Aleinikoff — has nothing to say.'"
The link goes to Joe Guzzardi’s January 16th column As Obama Takes The White House, Amnesty Ranks Thirteenth (Of Thirteen) On His Priority List allegedly "crowing" about "comprehensive immigration reform" ranking thirteenth out of thirteenth on Obama’s priority list.
Corcoran writes the blog Refugee Resettlement Watch. Her previous letter to VDARE.COM about Senator Teddy Kennedy’s refugee policy is here.
Joe Guzzardi comments: I’m flattered! According to its website, Immigration Daily is the only daily newspaper focused on immigration law in the world. Its primary customers are immigration lawyers. Since more immigration means more money to its readers, Immigration Daily posts articles that promote immigration and scoffs at columns like mine that reflect a patriotic immigration reform perspective.
Immigration Daily speculates in its post that, in 2009, many Congressional representatives will be trying hard to push through some form of amnesty. Among them are the usual suspects: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Zoe Lofgren, Shirley Jackson-Lee and Luis Gutierrez.
Some of them may eventually hold Congressional committee leadership positions that will enable them to "champion legalization" — the term used by Immigration Daily.
None of the names Immigration Daily listed are new to us. All have been long time amnesty supporters. But the question is not what Reid, et al may do but whether they can garner the necessary votes to do it — that is, pass any legalization legislation.
And Immigration Daily’s missed — perhaps intentionally — my main point. I wrote:
"We're going to have to suffer through occasional idiotic statements from Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. And I expect camouflaged efforts at amnesty through the ever-present DREAM Act which has been defeated more times than I can count over my twenty plus years of activism.
"We have beaten back these types of efforts in economic times much more conducive to amnesty."
Even with well-placed Congressional leaders, amnesty fails. In 2006-2007, George Bush, Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Leader Pelosi, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and President George W. Bush all backed amnesty. But amnesty died because it’s a political loser — a dog.
In short, in my view there’s not enough Congressional support to pass any major pro-immigration legislation.
Instead, the word most commonly used by Congressional Democrats to describe the idea of having to debate immigration reform is: "toxic."
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
From: Maggie Whitlock Art
As a retired tenured teacher, I have watched California schools, its quality of life and state budget be overwhelmed by population growth fueled by endless immigration.
In Part I of my book, Pyramids to Pilgrims: The Road to America, I recount the highlights of Western Civilization that made our country strong and successful. But the ultimate downfalls of ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome,, however, show how even great nations are fragile and fail if their citizens are not alert to protect them.
Part II warns that population could reach half a billion by 2050 further destroying our children’s education and environment. It explains how the 1965 Immigration Act fueled legal immigration from 250,000 yearly to over a million and put immigrants in a position to drive national policies hurtful to society.
I connect the dots between diversity and the destruction of our national cohesiveness.
Pyramids to Pilgrims includes hands on advice for parents and teens on how they can interact with Congress to bring about changes in current immigration and population legislation that are destroying America.
More information is available on my website.
Art, who taught for many years in northern California, is an immigration reform patriot of long standing.
[PermaLink] [Top] [Letters Home]
This is a content archive of VDARE.com, which Letitia James forced off of the Internet using lawfare.