'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, May 09, 2009

UK: Jihad Summer School

Via Creeping Sharia, who points out that these UK teenagers will be able to travel all over the world if they have passports:

RANTING preacher Anjem Choudary is planning to peddle his hate to teenagers at a “jihad” summer school.

The vile extremist has appointed himself principal lecturer of a 20-week course in his twisted version of Islam.

Now fears are being raised Choudary and his followers will indoctrinate a new generation of Muslim fanatics.

The minimum age advertised is 15, but his School of Shari’ah has promised to consider even younger students.

They will learn about the Islamic “struggle” and how to enter the “Gardens of Paradise”.

Last night disgusted Tory MP Philip Davies, 37, said: “This is appalling. We know what this character is like and the kinds of things he will be saying. We need summer schools to encourage people to integrate into British society.

"The last thing we need is individuals like this spreading their poison and indoctrinating more people into their cause.”

Choudary, 41, has joined fellow fanatics to set up the School of Shari’ah, based in east London.

A police source said: “Choudary is well on the radar and is considered safe because he is so high profile.”

English Democrats chairman Robin Tilbrook criticised Choudary’s right to preach hate while also raking in handouts.

He said: “Not only is he spreading his warped view of Islam, but he’s flaunting it in our face by doing it with our cash.”

Muslim Council of Britain spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: “Anjem Choudary is not regarded as a qualified Islamic scholar by mainstream UK Muslims.

“That said, however, he is free to promote his own views and teachings in the UK as long as he acts within the law.

“We live in a country that is proud of its tradition of free speech after all.”
At this rate, not for long.

Interview of Anjem Choudary:

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 2 Comments

Muslims: beyond the caricature

A survey about the attitudes of Muslims in the West reveals a loyal community, keen on integration – far from the usual stereotypes, and specifically in Britain. You don't believe me? Fine, but it's not me who said so, but somebody else with impeccable credentials, namely Shelina Zahra Janmohamed (picture left). Shelina Zahra Janmohamed's credentials, mind you, are not just appearing on her head, but on a regular basis in the Al Guardian as well, among them gems of journalist excellence like Let Muslim women speak ("Every man that is held up as an example has a woman by his side ... who is exemplary in her own right: Adam with Eve, Rachael with Moses, Mohamed with his wife Khadijah [and several others, among them a child]") or Beyond the bounds of religion ("Muslims should see Gaza not as a tragedy for the Islamic world, but for all human beings"). Her interpretation of a recent Gallup poll is equally up to any journalistic quality standard:
According to a Gallup poll released yesterday, only half of the UK population identifies itself as very strongly British. And in Germany only 32% of the general public feels that way about being German. Who then identifies most strongly with their nation, reaching a whopping 77% in the UK? Muslims.
Given the country Britain has become, this doesn't appear entirely improbable. For example with a Justice Secretary (Jack Straw) who had called for a redefinition of Englishness and hinted that the "global baggage of empire" was linked to soccer violence by "racist and xenophobic white males" and that the English "propensity for violence" was used to subject Ireland, Scotland and Wales by that "potentially very aggressive" English race.

Picture: Getty Images
Traces of the strong identification of Muslims with Britain in London 2005.

Or with a government that is pressing ahead legislation aimed at criminalising non-PC jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years' prison, with a 10-year-old child having been arrested and brought before a judge for having called an 11-year-old "Paki" and "Bin Laden" in a playground tiff at a primary school already. The other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby, but that was alright. With a Navy, that has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate a satanist crew member. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates, and talking about prisons, those have been quite a while ago already equipped with new toilets so Muslim inmates don’t have to use them while facing Mecca. And, not to forget, with a member of the upper house who gets his voice heard:
When I found out that Geert Wilders was planning to come to Britain and that Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson wanted to show his film, I wrote to the Home Office, the leader of the House of Lords and Black Rod to say that his presence would lead to the incitement of religious and racial hatred, which constitutes a public order offence.
Yes, taking all that into consideration, it is really not all that amazing that "a whopping 77% [of Muslims] in the UK" identify with this -- with their -- nation.

Proud Brits in full fly: Lord Ahmed demonstrating his strong identification with Britain.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 6 Comments

Three Cheers to Mandy Rice-Davies

Like the Al Guardian (and probably countless left-leaning media more) the Huffington Post lets another definitely unbiased witness comment on the sensational, groundbreaking, eye-opening, touching, wrong-righting, moving Gallup poll. Kamran Pasha, a "Hollywood filmmaker and the author of Mother of the Believers, a novel on the birth of Islam as told by Prophet Muhammad's wife Aisha" (we must get that book to see what a nine-year old girl has to say about marital bliss with a quinquegenarian) informs us:
The report, The Gallup Coexist Index 2009: A Global Study of Interfaith Relations, is the first annual report on the state of religious relations in nations around the world. The report contained some remarkable findings that show a troubling gap between how European Muslims see themselves, and what others assume about them.

French Muslims, for example, identify with France as much as other French do (52%/55%), although they identify much more with their religion (58%) than the general French public (23%). So for French Muslims, their religion and their national loyalty are complementary, not mutually exclusive. But their religious identification makes their patriotism suspect to their neighbors.

Similar results were noted in Germany, where 71% of German Muslims said Muslims were loyal to Germany, while only 39% of their neighbors trusted Muslim loyalty to the state. What makes this finding even more ironic is that 40% of German Muslims actively identify with Germany, while only 32% of the general German population did. So Muslims in Germany not only see themselves as more patriotic than others credit them for, they are more loyal to Germany than other Germans!
This would be hilarious, weren't it so damaging. One could ask now WHY, for example, are the French specifically sceptical about their Muslim neighbours? A possible answer would be: because French Muslims tend to riot violently. And yes, I am sure a Muslim Hollywood-Schmock knows exactly how a German student with a broken jaw feels after having his designer-sweat removed by his Muslim classmates. How intolerant not to appreciate being called "victim" and "potato", standard invectives patriotic German Muslims are fond of hurling toward their autochthonal compatriots. What is really remarkable about that 39% figure is that it is so low. But then, everything NOT to be called "Nazi" or "racist".

When almost all is said and done, only one thing remains to be said about the Muslim accounts in that sensational, groundbreaking, eye-opening, touching, wrong-righting, moving Gallup poll, a thing, which would close the "troubling gap between how European Muslims see themselves, and what others assume about them" once and for all: They WOULD say that, wouldn't they?

About Mandy Rice-Davies, the immortal hooker.

A couple of minutes and some reading later, I'd like to add that statisticians are calling something like this sensational, groundbreaking, eye-opening, touching, wrong-righting, moving Gallup poll GIGO.

First posted at Roncesvalles.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 0 Comments

Run for The Hills from Altruism

I just came across an entry at Ilana Mercer's blog. So Israelis will sue the NATO for the 1999 air strikes on Serbia. From the quoted BBC-report:
Almagor Director Meir Indor told the media in Israel that the lawsuit would be completed shortly.

He confirmed that the Serbian case might open a Pandora's Box, which could make certain individuals think twice before deciding to accept any lawsuits that the Palestinians filed against Israel.

“We see this as a case highlighting the double standards of Europeans who are accusing Israel of war crimes, while at the same time, those very same countries, as part of NATO, committed crimes that were a lot worse,“ Indor said.

He stressed that every European NATO member-state would be mentioned and that the suit would be filed in every country that decided to file similar actions against Israel for war crimes recently committed either in the aforesaid case, or, more recently, during the Israeli offensive in Gaza at the turn of the year.

“Even now Israeli Army generals cannot travel to the UK for fear of being arrested the moment they set foot in the airport,“ said the Almagor president.
That this was soon called in the comment section "a self-serving act by Israel" was not all that amazing. As well as anything, from battle to village skirmish, is called a "massacre" if Jews have won it, any action that might be actually beneficial to Israel is called "self-serving", carrying a heavily negative overtone. Mercer replies:
Sure, this is a self-serving action on the part of the Israelis. Altruism is overrated–and, at times, wrong-headed. You serve others best by serving yourself first and foremost. Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and all that stuff.
True, but I don't think that one even needs to pull out Adam Smith. It has always concerned me that self-interest carries such a negative implication, so let me digress from this specific case. I am German and was brought up in the, thoroughly German, spirit, that one has to do everything only out of the most noble of reasons. Specifically financial gain is heavily pooh-poohed (and as heavily begrudged) here and we are probably the only breed on earth who are taking the assessment: "He is a (good) businessman" as a negative one. Words like "Innigkeit" or "schwärmerisch" are, typically, untranslatable (the standard, and most non-apropos, translations would be "heartiness" and "enthusiastic") because they are weighed down with a wealth of late 18th and 19th Century German literature and culture, incomprehensible to anybody who hasn't gone through the agonising experience of a German higher education. Germans take everything seriously and to the bitter end. English Romanticism culminated in Beatrix Potter, German Romanticism in the death camps. So I came to the conclusion long ago that the altruists, the idealists, the romantics and Romanticists are those to avoid by a wide margin. If somebody says he's doing something "for a cause", I run for the hills.

Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 3 Comments

Animal-right Groups Stays True To Their Nazi Legacy: Ban Kosher

One of the first steps in Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitic drive in the creation of his Third Reich was instituting a ban on the kosher slaughter of animals.

The so called animal-right groups do of course not have any issues with halal-slaughter by those who scream 'kill the Jews', on the contrary, if one take a look at a leftwing blog promoting animal-rights it is not surprising to discover it contains Anti-semitism, is filled with hatred and not surprisingly it supports terrorism glorifying jihadis and the murder of our troops and citizen, going through a leftist blog is eyeopening, and helps explaining to a degree the question 'How come people became Nazis?'... They believe they are 'moral superior' from the rest of us advocating from a faux piedestal of a self-proclaimed 'Über-moral', what is further telling from the leftist mindset is that they in the same breath applaud Iranian President Ahmedinejadh's Anti-semitic speech to the UN while linking to the latest updates from the Animal liberation movement at the bottom, the irony is complete, the mindset disgusting and chilling at the same time.

The Nazi philosiphy of Animal-rights activism had a clear but sinister goal (From: Regarding animals by Arnold Arluke, Clinton Sanders)

- The drawing and blurring of lines of demarcation between humans and animals - Was essentiel of the Nazi paradox. After briefly discussing the extend of Nazi animal protection, we will see this boundary at work was effected in three ways - By morally elevating animals, identifying with them, and animalizing humans.

The same philosiphy is the ideological agenda of todays leftists as written in 'About' on the leftwing blog Civil libertarian, it even shares the same issues almost by the letter from the Nazis such as 'Vivisection':

....is dedicated to ending the unnecessary suffering of oppressed and exploited sentient beings and to the total liberation of human animals, nonhuman animals, and the Earth....

Keeping this in mind the animal groups are not surprisingly fighting for the ban on Kosher, just like the Nazis, what is, quote, unquote, surprising, is the EUSSR's legalization of Kosher, expect the left to fight the decision.

EU Legalizes Kosher Slaughter
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu - Israel National News

The European Union Parliament on Wednesday voted to legalize kosher slaughtering, which has been outlawed by six countries -- but a critical vote next month will determine if EU countries can effectively get around the approval by demanding pre-stunning, which violates Jewish dietary laws.

The European Jewish Congress and conference of European Jewish Rabbis lobbied heavily for the bill and defeated efforts by animal rights groups to ban kosher slaughtering, which demands swift death to the animal by use of a sharp knife at the throat.

Animal rights groups have claimed the method is cruel and have succeeded in banning kosher slaughtering in Latvia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia and Lithuania. Switzerland allows the method for poultry but not for other animals.

Rabbi Michael Melchior, former chief rabbi of Norway and currently an Israeli Knesset Member, has said that kosher slaughter is actually more humane than the practices in slaughterhouses. "The Torah forbids cruelty to animals, and the shechitah [slaughte process ensures that the animal loses consciousness immediately," he explained. "We have been dealing with this issue for many years, and there are many scientific studies that back us up."

The EU vote “represents the first time that ‘shechita’ has been recognized as a legitimate form of animal slaughter by any European institution," said Henry Grunwald, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Chairman of Shechita EU, which also fought for the new legislation.

The crucial vote on pre-stunning worries European Jews. "The [propo regulation must not be drafted to allow governments in Europe to threaten our culture and our freedom to observe our religion," said Philip Carmel of the Conference of European Rabbis. Serge Cwajgenbaum, Secretary General of the European Jewish Congress, added that “the Jewish community takes seriously the issues of human rights and the humane treatment of animals.”

The anti-kosher slaughtering bills have been viewed as anti-Semitic by many Jews in Europe, where Hitler banned the method as one of his first steps against Jews.

When Holland called kosher slaughtering "cruel" in 2003 but allowed Jews to continue using the method, Rabbi Melchior responded, "They simply don't want foreigners, and they don't want Jews. I won't say this is the only motivation, but it's certainly no coincidence that one of the first things Nazi Germany forbade was kosher slaughter.”

Attempts by Swiss Jews to lift its 100-year-old ban on kosher slaughtering caused an anti-Semitic backlash. In Sweden, there have been attempts to forbid circumcision, a Jewish law that has bound Jews for 3,500 years.

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League, has said that anti-Semitic politicians “aid and abet” animal right activists. “What other issues of animal rights have they engaged in to prohibit cruelty? When they begin and end with kosher slaughter, that's when it becomes suspect,” he stated.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Rolf Krake at permanent link# 10 Comments

David Petraeus, Healer


Not everything in this world has a neat tidy rational explanation.

Nor do we always need one.

h/t Gateway Pundit:


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 6 Comments

What say ye??

Chavez just seized some American owned companies at military gunpoint. What says his good friend Obama? Dare we use violence against violence? Will Obama pull out a daisy or a knife or . . .

Is a "pay for the company or we bomb you" policy wrong? They just stole our stuff. Would you use a knife on a mugger if you had it? Or do you just let him have your wallet and let it be his karma? No blood for oil! Does non-action invite copycats? Who?

What does history teach us? Walk softly and carry a big stick? He kept us out of war? Munich? What would the Greeks do? I can tell you what the Roman's would do! Would you follow the turn the other cheek method, my Christian friends?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by john press at permanent link# 9 Comments

Torn from the Flag

from Her Royal Whyness (really wish she'd agree to post here)(no pressure)(nonewhatsoever)(PLEASE!)

Below is an email request I received about an award winning independent film titled, TORN FROM THE FLAG.
Considering today is the anniversary of VE Day, this notice highlights the fragility of not just Hungarian independence, but that of the entire European continent which bends it's knee to Eurabia-fascism.



A trailer for the documentary film, TORN FROM THE FLAG about the 1956 Hungarian Revolution.

IMDb website at www.imdb.com/title/tt0468559/

About Hungary's struggle for a national identity against the domination of Soviet Communism with special focus on the successful armed popular rebellion of October 1956 that was put down when the Soviets invaded Budapest. A handful of impassioned survivors tell how they went from being idealistic communists to
being fierce anti-government freedom fighters, and then the victims of brutal repression. Then in 1989, the fall of the Soviet Empire occured that was partly lead by Hungarian activists crossing the border into Austria. Those who survived the crackdown in 1956 and who were alive to witness the events of 1989 finally feel that their sufferings and sacrifices have borne fruit and that their country has been redeemed.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This quick progress report is to update you on the latest developments on Torn from the Flag, the 96-minute documentary film about the decline of communism and the significant global effects of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and Freedom Fight.

It is with great sorrow that we inform you that Arisztid von Atkáry, one of the interviewees appearing in Torn from the Flag, passed away at 82 after a long illness. The production honors Freedom Fighter Arisztid von Atkáry!

We're continuously asked why the film is not shown in Hungary. We feel obligated to our supporters to shed light on the matter: Hungary's current post-communist government continues to sabotage the distribution of Torn from the Flag; that is why there have been no screenings in Hungary yet. A Hungarian-language interview with Klaudia Kovacs about the topic has now become available online: http://www.mno.hu/portal/624215?searchtext=

There are many examples of the government's sabotage. Not many people know that after Torn from the Flag premiered in Hollywood, the Los Angeles Hungarian Consulate forbade filmmaker Klaudia Kovacs from setting foot in the Consulate. The current government is full of (former) communists, including Los Angeles Consul General Balázs Bokor, so we're not surprised at the violation of another citizen's constitutional rights.

While the Consul regularly organizes premieres and film screenings for other films, he refuses to do so for Torn from the Flag. Although the film focuses on the decline of communism, the Consulate also refused to include Torn from the Flag in the cultural event series commemorating the 1989 events in Eastern Europe.

The Los Angeles Consulate is not the only Hungarian consulate that discriminates against Torn from the Flag. The Chicago Consul refused to support the film's participation in the Chicago Film Festival, which we had hoped back then to get into.

Last, but not least, the Cultural and Educational Ministry of Hungary, the producer of the 2009 U.S. program series "Year of Hungarian Culture," boycotted the film and refused to include Torn from the Flag, the most award-winning '56 Hungarian documentary, in their events.

These obstacles do not hold us back; as a matter of fact they inspire us even more to be unstoppable! We know that the greater the resistance the greater the importance of the film and the eventual breakthrough.

We're moving forward with the Hungarian translation and with the DVD release! Please let us know if you are interested in a DVD by sending an email to


Let your friends know, too, that the DVD will be available soon. Most importantly, any communities or schools that want to do a screening, write to us immediately.

IMPORTANT! We need two English- and/or Hungarian-speaking, meticulous volunteers to help with distribution and internet research--location can be anywhere. Preferably 10-20 hours a week; flexible schedule; working from home

Torn from the Flag is now on Wikipedia

and on Twitter. Facebook is coming soon as well!

We will be sending out a regular newsletter soon, mentioning all the fantastic individuals who keep us going with their help, love and enthusiasm. Stay tuned for more from the unstoppable team of Torn from the Flag, which stands firmly for true democracy in Hungary!

With gratitude,

Torn from the Flag


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 4 Comments

Obama: Historical Revisionist

This coming June, President Mountebank is planning yet another apology tour. This time he will include those victims of World War II, the Germans:

But he will be aware of the sensibilities of his German hosts before the D-Day commemoration and by travelling to Dresden — a city destroyed by ferocious Allied bombing in February 1945 — Mr Obama will also acknowledge how Germany suffered during the Second World War.

In 2003, Anne Applebaum wrote an article on how the Germans now think of themselves as victims (if not the victims) of the Second World War, seriously. The centerpiece of the Kraut pity-patter is the bombing of Dresden. She notes that on a visit to Germany, there was not one, but two books on the best-seller list with this thesis. As she states in "Germans as Victims":

One of the authors used the word "crematoria" to describe the burning buildings, described the Allied bomber pilots as the equivalents of Nazi police units that murdered Jews and concluded by wondering whether Winston Churchill, who ordered the bombings, ought to have been condemned as a war criminal.

It is my guess that these things are related: It cannot be an accident that a wave of unusually virulent, even irrational anti-Americanism has peaked just as Germans have begun, for the first time since the war, to talk about their past in a new way. Germany is reassessing its place in Europe, its role in the world, its postwar subordination to the United States. Some of the recalcitrance we've seen in Germany during the past year has been genuine opposition to the war in Iraq and genuine dislike of President Bush and what he is thought to stand for. But some reflects a deeper change. Germans, or at least some of them, no longer want to apologize for the 20th century. Germans, or at least some of them, no longer want to accept the political leadership of the United States.
Just look at the bestseller lists for proof.

"Virulent, even irrational anti-Americanism," There's a band-wagon President Mountebank will happily climb aboard. It is not a coincidence that the Age of Obama is also the age of militant, self-righteous evil. In his latest column in Commentary, Mark Steyn reports on how Holocaust Memorial Day 2008 was observed in what had once been the civilized city of London:

On Holocaust Memorial Day 2008, a group of just under 100 people—Londoners and a few visitors —took a guided tour of the old Jewish East End ... Those few dozen London Jews considered themselves at ’ome. But they weren’t. Not any more. The tour was abruptly terminated when the group was pelted with stones, thrown by “youths”—or to be slightly less evasive, in the current euphemism of Fleet Street, “Asian” youths. “If you go any further, you’ll die,” they shouted, in between the flying rubble.

As Steyn further reports, according to polls 62% of Germans “are sick of all the harping on about German crimes against the Jews.”

Next week, President Mountebank will be groveling in Egypt. There is no mention in the press release (I can't call this a "news" story) on whether our president will also be visiting Israel. While the Zero has the time for his ongoing campaign of groveling, there just is not any time to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister. President Mountebank's chronic apologizing for America should be no surprise. This is because he is a tiermondist. From Dreams from My Father:

I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Frantz Fanon, eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.
The typical response to this Portrait of the Future Messiah as Marxist Poseur is that he has since grown-up. I don't think so. His so-called values have not changed one iota. President Mountebank is obviously still alienated from American society and very, very angry. Meanwhile, the Jew-haters are uniting and marching. With President Mountebank, they have found an enabler. All they have to do is play the "neo-colonialism" victim card. As Mark Steyn noted, after Israel and Europe, we're next on the menu.

Crossposted at The Dougout

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 17 Comments

New GOP Ad

without comment

from Christian Soldier


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments

Oh Heck, One More

Just cuz I'm in that kind of a mood :)

Tom Cochrane
Life Is A Highway


Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 6 Comments

Hot Damn! It's The REAL Soggy Bottom Boys

Never let it be said I didn't try to honor requests ;) so pick your poison or enjoy them both.

(this is such a cool movie)

The Soggy Bottom Boys
Man of Constant Sorrow

Hope you all have a great weekend. I'll be away at daughter # 2's college graduation. Catch up with you all late Monday or Tuesday

(fear not nor let your soul dismay. I do have nightly music ready to go for you all while I'm out of touch;>)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments

Friday, May 08, 2009

May 8, 1945

Bookmark and Share
posted by The_Editrix at permanent link# 0 Comments

The Soggy Bottom Boys

Love this song.

Alison Krauss and Union Station
Man of Constant Sorrow

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments

Caldera Resigns

Hey, it's a start. . .

Fox News:

White House Military Office Chief Resigns Over Plane Flyover Flap

Louis Caldera, the man who organized the low-flying Air Force One plane that panicked New York City, has delivered his resignation.

President Obama accepted the resignation on Friday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement.

Obama has also asked Jim Messina, his deputy chief of staff, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates or his designee "to jointly review the organizational structure of the White House Military Office and the reporting relationship of its components to the White House and the Air Force, and to make recommendations to him to ensure that such an incident never occurs again, Gibbs said.

Caldera apologized for the April 27 incident.

Gates had ordered a review of notification procedures for high-visibility "training events" such as the Air Force One photo shoot that flew over the Manhattan skyline, striking fear in the hearts of New Yorkers.

In a letter responding to a request by Sen. John McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates wrote that he was concerned that the public had not been adequately informed about the flyover, a picture of which is to be released Friday by the White House.

"I am concerned that this highly public and visible mission did not include an appropriate public affairs plan nor adequate review and approval by senior Air Force and (Department of Defense) officials," Gates wrote in the letter dated Tuesday and later obtained by FOX News.

Participants on the flight included one combat photographer, a standard crew complement for Air Force One and the two F-16s that accompanied it and no non-duty personnel or extra passengers, Gates wrote.

Gates wrote the mission was planned in late March 2009 and was coordinated by the White House Military Office's Presidential Airlift Unit, which is an Air Force unit; Federal Aviation Administration liaisons; a Systems Operations Security team; traffic managers; New York air traffic control representatives and Newark and LaGuardia tower supervisors.

Gates wrote the FAA notified several agencies on April 24, 2009, about the impending event, including the U.S. Park Police, the New York City mayor's office, the New York City Office of Emergency Management, New York City Police Department Operations, New Jersey State Police Regional Coordination Center and New Jersey area emergency operations centers in Newark, Jersey City, Bayonne, Hoboken and Elizabeth.

The plane flew at FAA-approved altitude, according to the defense secretary. In conjunction with the photo shoot, the pilots also practiced instrument approaches and landings at Atlantic City International Airport, an approved training location.

The April 27 flyover sparked chaos in the city since the public, and even Mayor Michael Bloomberg, had not been notified it would take place. Thousands of New Yorkers, reminded of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, quickly evacuated office buildings and emergency call centers were inundated.

"The reaction to the low-flying VC-25 and F-16 fighter aircraft over New York City (NYC) is understandable, and we deeply regret the anxiety and alarm that resulted from this mission," Gates wrote.

A day after the flight, President Obama denounced the photo-op, which cost $328,835, calling it "a mistake."

Earlier this week, the Obama administration did an about-face when it first announced it would not release any pictures of the flyover even though officials said the whole reason for it was to take publicity photos and give pilots some flying time. The next day Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said a photo would be forthcoming.

Gates wrote that he was also concerned that an Air National Guard aircraft was used in the mission.

"I have asked the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure that the Military Service and National Guard Bureau procedures for such activities include appropriate safeguards, checks and balances to ensure missions of this type are properly reviewed, vetted and announced in the future," he wrote.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 5 Comments

Scores die in ‘full-scale’ Pakistan offensive


Scores die in ‘full-scale’ Pakistan offensive

Army claims 143 militants killed in 24 hours; U.N. says one million displaced
msnbc.com news services

MINGORA, Pakistan - Pakistani jets screamed over a Taliban-controlled town Friday and bombed suspected militant positions as desperate residents appealed for a pause in the fighting so they could escape.

Troops have killed 143 militants over the past 24 hours in fighting in the Islamist bastion of Swat northwest of the capital, the military said on Friday.

One million people have been displaced in recent months over the operation in the northwestern Swat Valley and surrounding districts that followed strong U.S. pressure on Pakistan to fight back against militants advancing toward the capital as a now-defunct peace deal crumbled.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan has launched at least a dozen operations in the border region in recent years, but most ended inconclusively and after massive destruction and significant civilian deaths. It remains a haven for al-Qaida and Taliban militants, foreign governments say.

To end one of those protracted offensives, the government signed a peace accord in Swat that provided for Islamic law in the region. But that deal began unraveling last month when Swat Taliban fighters moved into Buner, a neighboring district just 60 miles from Islamabad.

'Full-scale operation'

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani on Thursday ordered the army to strike at "militants and terrorists" he said were trying to hold the country hostage at gunpoint.

"Approximately 143 militants have been reported killed in Swat valley," military spokesman Major-General Atthar Abbas told a news briefing at army headquarters in Rawalpindi.

There was no independent confirmation of the toll.

"On the directive of the government, the army is now engaged in a full-scale operation to eliminate the militants," he said. "They are on the run and trying to block exodus of civilians from the area," Abbas said, while warning that the operation was difficult and declining to give a timeline for clearing the valley.

Earlier, military officials had said helicopter gunships, fighters and troops were all involved in Swat operations on Friday, against roughly 4,000 to 5,000 militants.

Abbas said up to 15,000 security force members were involved.

Refugee exodus

The U.N. refugee agency said Friday that half a million people have fled the fighting in the past few days, bringing the total displaced in recent months to 1 million.

A spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said the fighting has led to massive displacement in the area.

Ron Redmond said up to 200,000 people have arrived in safe areas in the past few days and that another 300,000 are on the move or are about to flee.

Redmond told reporters in Geneva on Friday that the numbers were in addition to 555,000 already counted by the United Nations since August.

Plea for assistance

Pakistan's prime minister appealed for international assistance late Thursday for the growing refugee crisis and vowed to defeat the militants in the latest operation.

"I appeal to the people of Pakistan to support the government and army at this crucial time," Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said in a television address. "We pledge to eliminate the elements who have destroyed the peace and calm of the nation and wanted to take Pakistan hostage at gunpoint."

The military hailed signs of the public's mood shifting against the Taliban after the militants used the peace deal to regroup and advance.

"The public have seen their real face," Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas said. "They realize their agenda goes much beyond Shariah (Islamic) courts. They have a design to expand."

Still, the pro-Western government will face a stiff task to keep a skeptical nation behind its security forces. The exodus from Swat adds to the more than 500,000 already displaced by fighting elsewhere in Pakistan's volatile border region with Afghanistan.

Military operations are taking place in three districts that stretch over some 400 square miles. Much of the fighting has been in the Swat Valley's main city of Mingora, a militant hub that was home to around 360,000 people before the insurgency two years ago.

‘Kill terrorists, but don't harm us’Many of those have fled the city, but tens of thousand remain. Some have said the Taliban are not allowing them to leave, perhaps because they want to use them as "human shields" and make the army unwilling to use force.

"We want to leave the city, but we cannot go out because of the fighting," said one resident, Hidayat Ullah. "We will be killed, our children will be killed, our women will be killed and these Taliban will escape."

"Kill terrorists, but don't harm us," he pleaded.

The military says that more than 150 militants and several soldiers have been killed since the offensive began last week. It has not given any figures for civilian deaths, but witness and local media say they have occurred. A hospital in Mardan just south of the battle zone on Thursday was treating 45 civilians with serious gunshot or shrapnel wounds.

Among the youngest patients was Chaman Ara, a 12-year-old girl with shrapnel wedged in her left leg. She said she was wounded last week when a mortar shell hit the truck taking her family and others out of Buner.

She said seven people died, including one of her cousins, and pointed to a nearby bed where the boy's wounded mother lay prone. "We mustn't tell her yet. Please don't tell her," she whispered.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments

Obama to Address Muslim World From Egypt

Oh Yippee! I can hardly wait to hear him apologize to the entire Muslim World from a Muslim Capital for the way we have treated the entire Muslim World Community because a few of their brothers got a little reckless with some airplanes a few years back, knocked some buildings down and killed some folks. And how we really don't understand the religion of peace in this country but he hopes to change all that now that he is in control.

Involuntary Vehicular Homicide by Passenger Jet, don't you know.

Washington Post:

Obama to Address Muslim World From Egypt

By Anne E. Kornblut and Glenn KesslerPresident Obama will make his promised speech to the Muslim world from Egypt, a White House official said on Friday.

Obama pledged during the campaign to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital within the first few months of taking office. Picking a site proved challenging for a range of reasons -- from diplomacy to security -- and the decision took longer than expected, with Obama commissioning options from a research team.

Having settled on Egypt, the White House will announce soon that he is adding a stop there to an upcoming overseas trip, presumably his early June visit to Normandy for the anniversary of D-Day.

Choosing Cairo will inevitably bring comparisons with a major speech that then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave there in 2005, urging democracy and reform in the Middle East.

In that speech, Rice specifically urged the Egyptian government to "put its faith in its own people," calling on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to end violent attacks on pro-democracy demonstrators, stop "arbitrary justice" and lift emergency decrees allowing the police to break up gatherings of more than five people. She also made similar demands on Saudi Arabia, another close U.S. ally. However, Rice tempered her comments by saying the United States had "every reason for humility" because of its history of slavery and racism. Mubarak, who will meet with Obama at the White House later this month, was so angered by the democracy push that he did not make his annual spring visit to Washington for all of Bush's second term. The Obama administration, in its budget released this week, has already loosened restrictions imposed by Bush to ensure some U.S. aid went to democracy groups not approved by the Egyptian authorities.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 2 Comments

Friday Nooner!

Absolutely stunning music. One of my favorites for many years.

Samuel Barber
Adagio for Strings

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 7 Comments

Taliban to Pope Benedict XVI: Stop Christian evangelism, or else

Also Jihad Watch:

Taliban to Pope Benedict XVI: Stop Christian evangelism, or else

This issue is much broader than the grievance du jour, as demonstrated by the Taliban's citing of the case of Abdel Rahman. Ultimately, absurd as it is to tell a pope to speak out against evangelization, they are throwing down a gauntlet with an impossible demand in an attempt to widen the scope of the war: By refusing or ignoring the Taliban, or doing anything other than repudiating Jesus' own command to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations," the Vatican will have committed a hostile act in the eyes of the Taliban and its supporters in this regard, who believe freedom of conscience is a one-way street to Islam. And it just happens to coincide with his upcoming trip to the Middle East.

"Afghanistan: Taliban urges Pope to stop Christian conversion," from AdnKronos International, May 7:
Kabul, 7 May (AKI) - The Taliban on Thursday threatened "harsh reprisals" if Pope Benedict XVI does not immediately intervene to stop Christians proselytising in Afghanistan. In a message posted on their official website, the Taliban made the threat against the pope and Christians for spreading their faith.

The message followed video footage aired on Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Jazeera earlier this week apparently showing Christian soldiers proselytising outside the Afghan capital, Kabul, and handing out copies of the bible in Pashtun.

"We are sending out a message to the most important personality in the
Christian world - Pope Benedict XVI," read the message.

"If he does not immediately stop these stupid and irresponsible acts of proselytism by the crusaders, our reprisals and that of the Afghan people will be very harsh.

"Afghans are offended by this," the message said.

The message claimed that dozens of Christian missionaries are proselytising in Afghanistan under the guise of humanitarian non-governmental organisations.

It also said these groups are collaborating directly with American and other foreign troops in Afghanistan.

"They are taking advantage of the war and of needy Afghans, who are driven
towards the religious deviance of these groups," it said.

The message cited as examples the "apostate" Abdel Rahman who converted to
Christianity and gained asylum in Italy and a group of 23 South Korean missionaries kidnapped by the Taliban in July 2007.

It called on Afghans, especially religious leaders and intellectuals, to "repel the attacks on their faith which prolong the crusader war started by (former US president George W.) Bush".

Religious leaders and mujahadeen (holy warriors) must keep tabs on the movements of "enemies of Islam" and crusader occupiers" and prevent them from spreading "the propaganda of other religions in the land of Islam," the message said.

"All the supporters of (Afghan president) Hamid Karzai's regime, especially
the courts the justice and Islamic affairs ministries must apologise and condemn
these crusader acts.

"They must no longer allow them to take up arms against us, thus redeeming
themselves before Allah," the message concluded....


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 8 Comments

Jihadists enraged that the Pope is visiting the Mideast without apologizing

Jihad Watch:

Jihadists enraged that the Pope is visiting the Mideast without apologizing

And without condemning Israel and buying into the Palestinian propaganda about how Israel's action against Hamas, which boasted of using civilians as human shields, was somehow comparable to the Holocaust.

Let's hope he stands firm. "Islamists say Pope's Mideast visit provocative," by Suleiman al-Khalidi for Reuters, May 7 (thanks to all who sent this in):

AMMAN (Reuters) – Jordanian Islamist leaders on Thursday condemned Pope
Benedict's visit to the Middle East, saying it was provocative because he has not apologized for offending comments implying Islam was violent and irrational.

They said the pope, who arrives in Jordan on Friday on the first leg of a tour including Israel and the Palestinian territories, still owed them an apology for hinting Islam was violent and irrational in a 2006 speech in Regensburg.

Jordan's Roman Catholic Church urged Islamists on Wednesday to welcome the
pope despite their earlier criticism of his visit. A senior Amman official
acknowledged some discontent but said the government would warmly welcome

"The present Vatican pope is the one who issued severe insults to Islam and did not offer any apology to the Muslims," Zaki Bani Rusheid, head of the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest mainstream Islamist party, told Reuters.

"Ignoring Muslim sentiments will only block the healing of wounds his statements caused," said another Islamist figure, Jamil Abu Baker.

For many Arabs in the region, the pope's stated mission of peace and reconciliation is futile without a sufficient gesture to Palestinian suffering under Israeli occupation.

This was even more pressing in Jordan, a country where a large portion of its 5.6 million are of Palestinian origin, they or their parents having been expelled or fled to Jordan in the fighting that accompanied the creation of Israel in 1948.

"It's the same pope who apologized to the Jews about the Holocaust and now
comes to the region but says nothing about the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe),"
Bani Rusheid added. Arabs call Israel's creation the "Nakba" (catastrophe)....

Jordanian Islamists also condemned a visit to Jerusalem's memorial to
Holocaust victims, demanding a comparable gesture to "victimized Palestinians"
to prove he was even-handed.

"We ask if the Vatican pope will visit Gaza to explore how humanity is being violated," Jamil Abu Bakr said.

The outlawed Hizb ut-Tahrir Party issued a statement urging Jordanian
authorities to withdraw their invitation.

"All Muslims should raise their voices high to say that any one who insults
our Prophet is not welcome on this land in any way," said the radical party,
which seeks to unite Muslims into a pan-Islamic state but says its means are


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 5 Comments

Jerusalem worried over breakdown of U.S.-Israel cooperation under Obama


Jerusalem worried over breakdown of U.S.-Israel cooperation under Obama
By Aluf Benn and Barak Ravid

Senior officials in Jerusalem expressed concern recently over the sharp decline in the coordination between Israel and the United States on security and state affairs since President Barack Obama's entered the White House and especially since the formation of Israel's new government.

Senior White House officials told their Israeli counterparts that Obama will demand Netanyahu completely suspend construction in the settlements, the officials said.

"Obama's people brief their Israeli counterparts in advance much less about security and Middle East policy activities than the Bush administration used to," the officials said.

In addition, when they do brief Israeli officials, they don't consult with them or coordinate their statements in advance.

This has caused several coordination "malfunctions" between the two states in the past two months, they said.

The last incident was the statement of Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The statement had not been coordinated with Israeli officials in charge of the nuclear issue and they heard it first from the media.

This followed other equally problematic incidents. The American policy shift toward Syria and opening direct talks with Damascus followed minimal coordination with Israel. For example, Israel was not briefed about senior American diplomats' trip to Damascus, which the U.S. had initiated.

Another incident concerned U.S. envoy for Iranian affairs Dennis Ross' trip to the Gulf states a few days ago for talks on Iran. Israel was briefed on the trip in general details, but no consultations or message-coordination took place before the trip. In addition, Ross did not pass through Israel on his way to the Gulf or back to brief Israel on the talks' outcome.

The American policy toward Iran has remained generally ambiguous as far as Israel is concerned and the administration has not outlined to Israel its plan for a dialogue with Iran in an orderly way. Many of the details Israel learned about this plan were obtained via European channels.

The Israeli officials said the problem also stems from the government change in both states and because clear work procedures between the sides have not been set established.

"This will be one of the most important things Netanyahu will have to settle with Obama," a senior official said.

However, the official said the new administration no longer seems to see Israel as a "special" or "extraordinary" state in the Middle East, with which the U.S. must maintain a different dialogue than with other states.

"The feeling is that the dialogue and coordination with the Arab states and with Europe is today no less important to the U.S. and perhaps more so than with Israel," the official said.

Uzi Arad, the official in the Prime Minister's Office in charge of the liaison with the American administration, maintains ties with various American officials but has not yet forged a direct channel to his counterpart, National Security Advisor General James L. Jones.

Arad is scheduled to go to Washington next week to prepare for Netanyahu's trip.

Arad will outline the first chapters of Israel's new foreign policy, with an emphasis on the Palestinian and Iranian issues, at his meeting with Jones next Tuesday in Washington ahead of Obama's meeting with Netanyahu May 18.

The Americans are expected to tell Arad what Obama expects of his meeting with Netanyahu and coordinate the meeting's agenda, issues and the two men's statements in the news conference after the meeting.

The Americans are also expected to brief Arad on the talks between American and Syrian officials in Damascus on Thursday.

During the Olmert government, Israeli officials kept very close ties with their counterparts in the American administration. This included advanced briefings about almost every American move. The Israelis were even briefed about former president George W. Bush's speeches or former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's foreign policy statements.

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert used to have regular conversations with Bush while former foreign minister Tzipi Livni kept in touch with Rice. Olmert's chief of staff Yoram Turbowicz and political advisor Shalom Turgeman coordinated foreign policy activities with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and his deputy Elliot Abrams.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 1 Comments

February 27, 1860

The Cooper Union Address

New York, New York
February 27, 1860

In October 1859 Abraham Lincoln accepted an invitation to lecture at Henry Ward Beecher's church in Brooklyn, New York, and chose a political topic which required months of painstaking research. His law partner William Herndon observed, "No former effort in the line of speech-making had cost Lincoln so much time and thought as this one," a remarkable comment considering the previous year's debates with Stephen Douglas.

The carefully crafted speech examined the views of the 39 signers of the Constitution. Lincoln noted that at least 21 of them -- a majority -- believed Congress should control slavery in the territories, not allow it to expand. Thus, the Republican stance of the time was not revolutionary, but similar to the Founding Fathers, and should not alarm Southerners (radicals had threatened to secede if a Republican was elected President).

When Lincoln arrived in New York, the Young Men's Republican Union had assumed sponsorship of the speech and moved its location to the Cooper Institute. The Union's board included members such as Horace Greeley and William Cullen Bryant, who opposed William Seward for the Republican Presidential nomination. Lincoln, as an unannounced presidential aspirant, attracted a capacity crowd of 1,500 curious New Yorkers.

An eyewitness that evening said, "When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, - oh, how tall! and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man." However, once Lincoln warmed up, "his face lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man."

Herndon, who knew the speech but was not present, said it was "devoid of all rhetorical imagry." Rather, "it was constructed with a view to accuracy of statement, simplicity of language, and unity of thought. In some respects like a lawyer's brief, it was logical, temperate in tone, powerful - irresistibly driving conviction home to men's reasons and their souls."

The speech electrified Lincoln's hearers and gained him important political support in Seward's home territory. Said a New York writer, "No man ever before made such an impression on his first appeal to a New York audience." After being printed by New York newspapers, the speech was widely circulated as campaign literature.

Easily one of Lincoln's best efforts, it revealed his singular mastery of ideas and issues in a way that justified loyal support. Here we can see him pursuing facts, forming them into meaningful patterns, pressing relentlessly toward his conclusion.

With a deft touch, Lincoln exposed the roots of sectional strife and the inconsistent positions of Senator Stephen Douglas and Chief Justice Roger Taney. He urged fellow Republicans not to capitulate to Southern demands to recognize slavery as being right, but to "stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively."

Mr. President and fellow citizens of New York: -

The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in "The New-York Times," Senator Douglas said:

"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?"

What is the frame of government under which we live?

The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which the present government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better than we do now?"

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it - how they expressed that better understanding?

In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four - James M'Henry - voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition - thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87.

The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded territory. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it - take control of it - even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so bought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it - take control of it - in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation to slaves, was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts.

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution.

In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine" - Rufus King and Charles Pinckney - were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20 - there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who framed the government under which we live," who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now;" and twenty-one of them - a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine" - so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris - while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, that all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution - the identical Congress which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.

The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre- eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories.

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two things, alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we - better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.

Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience - to reject all progress - all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.

If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" were of the same opinion - thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now."

But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask - all Republicans desire - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content.

And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it.

But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution - the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling - that sentiment - by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there - "distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else - "expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" - and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due," - as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this, is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live" - the men who made the Constitution - decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago - decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension - its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.


Bookmark and Share
posted by midnight rider at permanent link# 0 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts