• About Pacificvs

Tag Archives: History

“Abe Lincoln’s Yarns and Stories”

07 Friday Dec 2012

Posted by Adrian Covert in Readings

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

books, civil war, History, leo w. spratt, lincoln, san francisco, slavery

Abe Lincoln's Yarns and Stories

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On February 13th, 1861, the editor of South Carolina’s Charleston Mercury newspaper penned a defiant polemic against the new Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States of America. The crime? In an appeal to moderate border states, rebel delegates outlawed the importation of new slaves from Africa. “The South is now in the formation of a Slave Republic“. Slave society, he argued, was something to “avow and affirm…as a living principle of social order” which could fail only if its leaders failed to fully embrace it as such. He urged rebel leaders across the South to just come out and admit what everyone knew but for some reason (shame, most likely) couldn’t: that they were fighting for slavery because they believed in it.

The editor’s name was Leo W. Spratt. 40 years later in 1901, Spratt bought a book, a Christmas present, titled ‘Abe’ Lincoln’s Yarns and Stories (a greatest hits album of sorts to Lincoln’s legendary humor). Spratt gifted the book to a man named “Darius”. On May 31, 1922, Darius cut out a newspaper clipping, a picture of the 79 year old Robert Todd Lincoln, the President’s only surviving son, who had attended the dedication of his slain father’s memorial the previous day. Darius folded the clipping into the book.

90 years, six months, and five days later (aka December 5, 2012), I met a colleague for a work lunch at a Galette 88, a modern creperie located in San Francisco’s financial district. We discussed innovations in the water sector. I had the smoked salmon crepe.

On my way back to the office I passed by a book seller. Nothing much, just a couple stands run by a man named Rick.

Rick had some gems. But one edition in particular took my eye–a dark work, covered in ornate gold leaf, tarnished and earthen by over four score of hands and neglect. Emblazoned on the cover was the portrait of Lincoln, looking every bit the man whose melancholy was once described as having “dripped from him as he walked”.

The inside cover revealed a lonely newspaper clipping, an old man had joined an entire nation in loving remembrance of his long dead father. The book was signed:

Leo W. Spratt
Dec 25: 1901
To Darius [unreadable]

What motivated this old rebel to spend money on a slapstick Lincoln totem? Had he recanted? Was it a gag gift? A joke among old confederate buddies? Did Darius cut out the picture of Robert as a keepsake? Were they, as former enemies of the president, as gripped by Lincoln’s overwhelming legacy as the rest of the us?

Spratt once had a terrible vision of an imperial Slave Republic at the center of global power, respect, and commerce. “Bride of the world, rather than the miserable mistress of the North” he wrote. Forty years later he was giving Lincoln jokes to buddies.

Now he’s dead, and his book is mine.

photo (5)

Enlightenment Revisited

20 Saturday Nov 2010

Posted by Adrian Covert in Readings

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

a wicked company, atheism, books, enlightenment, european enlightenment, History, philipp blom

Philipp Blom takes on historical revisionism, Rousseau, and the splendor of 18th century Paris. “A Wicked Company: The Forgotten Radicalism of the European Enlightenment”.

At the fashionable salon of Madame Geoffrin, God's existence was definitely not a topic of debate. Skeptics instead skipped over to Holbach's house.

Monotheism, the trifold belief that a supernatural world exists and that it is governed exclusively by one all-powerful being and that one can have an intense personal relationship with said being, is perhaps the most consequential development of Western philosophy. Borrowing mightily from Judaism, Christianity had, by the 18th century, become the official religion of virtually all of Europe and Byzantium, while Islam dominated Arabia, Persia, and North Africa.

But while Christianity was beginning to assert itself abroad, it had begun to come under attack at home. Capitalism, industrialism, and scientific progress had so radically transformed Europe, and had done so with such breathtaking speed, that many European thinkers began to consider human progress capable of reaching perfection. To these thinkers, man was being tyrannized– his true potential blocked–by two ancient institutions: hereditary monarchy and Christianity.

European monarchs, yoked to a broad and expensive aristocracy, were increasingly seen as a social cancer; unnatural and unproductive, the ruling class consumed wealth created by others. Christianity proclaimed this order to be God’s will, damning those who challenged authority to eternal fire in the afterlife, and actual fire hear-and-now. This intolerably corrupted theocratic arrangement made increasingly little sense in the exciting new world of scientific and economic progress. Europe’s great thinkers set about crafting a path towards mankind’s ultimate political progress.

Paul-Henri Thiry Baron d'Holbach

It is here where we come across a monumental division in Enlightenment thought regarding man and God. One camp, led by the deists Rousseau and Voltaire, argued that man cannot live without belief in absolute truth, even if that belief is actually false. Since Christianity was false, they believed, it was not to be simply destroyed, but actively replaced by a more perfect virtue, a perfect religion designed to worship a perfect being as deduced by human reason. Another camp, led by atheists Denis Diderot, Baron d’Holbach, and the atheistic David Hume, argued that Christianity was certainly false, but that it’s most consequential evils came not from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, but from Christianity’s unique standing in Europe as a law-religion, wedded to the state. Human progress was subject to acute limits, they reasoned, and thus they were skeptical of utopia, Christian or otherwise.

The Age of Revolution was a volatile epoch, and many Enlightenment ideas were  tested by the period’s political actors (Holbach’s essay Christianity Unveiled, and his suspiciously familiar-sounding Good Sense were published in 1761 and 1772 respectively). The atheist philosophies which argued for a state disinterested in the religious lives of it’s citizens was seized by the American Revolutionaries, especially Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, the latter of whom would first codify this stance in Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom, then finally the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Jefferson’s library contained copies of both Sense and Unveiled).

Denis Diderot.

Meanwhile, the radical deist philosophies of Rousseau and Voltaire, which believed that the state can and should dismantle and replace Christianity along more virtuous guidelines, were seized by the French Revolutionaries. Robespierre in particular was steeped in Voltaire and Rousseau, and his Jacobins aggressively “de-Christianized” France: First by replacing the christian calendar (with the year of the Revolution as year “0”), then by putting much of the clergy to the guillotine, and then finally by unveiling a new deity, the Goddess of Reason, who was “played” by the wife of the printer Antoine-François Momoro and for whom an absurd ceremony was held in Notre Dame.

The rest is history: The United States would follow the Diderot/Holbach/Hume model and develop into a wealthy and industrialized state characterized by pluralistic religious liberty under what is perhaps the most durable Western political regime ever, while France, and later Russia and Cambodia (Lenin and Pol-Pot were steeped in Voltaire), labored terror and barbarism in the fruitless pursuit of the utopia vaingloriously promised by deist philosophers infatuated with the notion of a perfect being.

This interpretation of events is not new. It is, in fact, at least as old as Isaiah Berlin’s 1958 essay “Two Concepts of Liberty”. But it has been refreshingly revived by historian Philipp Blom in his examination of the “Forgotten Radicalism of the Enlightenment” in A Wicked Company (Basic Books).

Company focuses almost exclusively on the salon of Paul-Henri Thiry Baron d’Holbach, a wealthy, German-born scientist who establishes a regular salon in his adopted Paris. Holbach’s coterie includes a who’s-who of Enlightenment thinkers, including Denis Diderot, David Hume, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau (whose paranoia and late-life turn to radical deism would isolate him from the salon). Blom uses the verve and color of 18th century Paris as a clever delivery system for impressively terse explanations of his subjects’ materialist philosophies. (A sample menu from a typical Holbach gathering lists 26 dishes, including Ox palates and grilled veal,  served over 5 courses).

Madame Helvetius. The widow Helvetius was a charismatic, well-educated woman of means. She worked with Diderot on several of his writings, and American diplomat Ben Franklin even asked her hand in Marriage. She declined.

The book strides with subversive energy: these thinkers were publishing the first fully atheist philosophical works since ancient Rome, and were doing so under strict secrecy as heresy was punishable by death. Company also endows the reader with an appreciation for the philosophical origins of broad-based contemporary values we now take for granted (including freedom of religion, sexual liberation, secular government, and women’s equality) and on whose behalf Holbach’s salon defiantly advocated.

Blom’s revisiting of the Enlightenment comes at an important time for the atheism with which he obviously identifies. After three best-selling books, one feature length film, and numerous viral internet campaigns, “New Atheism” is about to enter it’s 7th year as an American cultural phenomenon (that is, if one marks the movements’ beginnings with Sam Harris’ 2004 The End of Faith). New Atheists have all but made their case, and with the coming eclipse of Christopher Hitchens, the movement’s most powerful voice, New Atheism risks fading into memory, an interesting blip in the history of American skepticism. Company keeps the movement interesting by crafting a narrative which connects the non-religious to their risk-taking philosophical forbears and, not unimportantly, by making what is, to-date, the most powerful refutation of the popular idea that the cruelest despots of the 20th century were somehow inspired by atheist ideologies.

This is where Blom’s account of history soars. He demonstrates once-and-for-all that the  most murderous regimes of the 20th century were rooted, not in atheism, but in the 18th century European obsession with a “supreme being”. What Hitler, Pol-Pot, Stalin, Mao, and the Kim regime have in common is the “belief-in-belief”: a philosophical invention of the deists Rousseau and Voltaire that rejected Christianity as obviously contrived and morally dangerous, yet also rejected atheism on the grounds that people need to believe in absolute truth, even if one must invent it.

The last part of that sentence is deeply troubling, as it contains something for nearly everyone to hate. First, it implies that religion is created based on a babyish need for consolation; Second, it asserts that this need has only ever been met with man-made fictions; Third, it logically follows that there’s no harm, and certainly no reason, man shouldn’t replace one fiction with another if he feels it to be superior to the old. This logic was followed to brutal effect during the French Revolution’s Cult of Reason, and later in the Nazi, Stalinist, Maoist, Cambodian, and North Korean state-cults.

Founded on deist philosophy and bearing the uniting feature of compulsory state-worship, how is it that these nightmare regimes are so often mistaken for being atheistic? Does Christianity feature a philosophical necessity to categorize all non-Christian religions “atheist”? As much as it is a history of ideas, A Wicked Company makes a powerful distinction between the deism and atheism which sharply divided Enlightenment thinkers, and demonstrates how mankind’s greatest atrocities would be caused by the former, and blamed on the latter.

Whispers of Revisionism: The Lincoln Legacy

11 Wednesday Feb 2009

Posted by Adrian Covert in Readings

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Abraham Lincoln, christopher hitchens, History, President Obama

abe_lincoln

TWENTY SEVEN hours from now will mark the 200th year since the birth of Abraham Lincoln. The nation’s weeklies and newspapers and television networks have prepared numerous specials and tributes to mark the occasion. In Newsweek, literary journalist and the biographer of both Thomases–Jefferson and Paine–Christopher Hitchens contributes “The Man Who Made Us Whole“, while in Springfield, Illinois, Lincoln’s political hometown, a slew of authors, biographers, and historians are to gather to remember the Great Emancipator.

Observances of the Lincoln bicentennial will manifest across the land in a myriad of ways. Debate, however, will be quietly humming in the background.

Enough time has elapsed since the life and times of our 16th president that his legacy has noticeably fogged. Be reminded that 1930’s New York City used to play host to annual Lincoln-Lenin parades and that Lincoln was often compared to Christ in the generations immediately succeeding him. Contrast this to the more contemporary reactions to the sound of Lincoln’s name overheard at parties the past several months, “I heard he didn’t really care about slaves” “Wasn’t he, like, actually a racist?” or even a curt “Overrated”.

A woefully inept history curriculum has wed the rusting of time, and their progeny are predictably ill-at-ease with the facts of their forebears.

Most of the hesitancy regarding Lincoln-praise are at least on account of the right reservations. Nobody wants to be seen praising provincial bigots. But a provincial bigot Lincoln was certainly not. There exists a particular quote from Lincoln’s failed 1858 Senate bid, which produced the storied Lincoln-Douglas debates, which Lincoln detractors most often site to support their claims of his racism:

“[The negro] is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment…”

The first part of this sentence must be viewed simply as a bland statement-of-fact; black America was not to achieve legal equality until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and not to realize actual equality until noon, January 20th, 2009 (some would respectfully disagree). It is the second part of the quote from which controversy springs forth, that the man of African descent is “perhaps” not the moral and intellectual equal of the European. Perhaps–a key watchword, and to ignore Lincoln’s use of it is to let cynicism blind one to their better senses, for, judging by what comes immediately next in Lincoln’s speech, he was using this supposition to deliver the point to the white populace, many of whom subscribed to the racist creed: that racist sentiment was, indeed is, no justification for violating the principles of the Declaration:

“…But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.”

Of the more serious critiques of Lincoln, none is more legitimate than the dubious expansion of the power of the federal government which occurred under his administration; power which was ceded by the states and which Washington not only never returned, but continuously exploits to acquire more power. Lincoln’s presidency removed people’s patriotic identity with their state and olay-ed it onto the nation-at-large.  Hitchens points out the linguistic evidence for the shift: that it was not until after Gettysburg that people began to say “the United States is…” rather than “the United States are…”. On the success of Lincoln’s ability to transform the country from a loose confederation into one nation, indivisible, there could not exist an example more profound in its simplicity.

To States’ Rights fundamentalists, the Lincoln moment represents the United States’ fall from grace; from humble and virtuous republic to the centralized and immoral behemoth our founders warned against. With a callous indifference to the facts, Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) insists that it was Lincoln who brought war on the south rather than the other way around:

“[Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”

Click here for a Civil War timeline

Congressman Paul’s opinion requires a very surgical interpretation of American history. Most importantly, it requires ignoring all the founders who were not Thomas Jefferson. To ascribe creating a small central government as the “original intent” of all of the founders is incorrect, and John Adams, the “Lion of Independence”, was opposed to such a confederation, as was Alexander Hamilton and even– “Father of the Nation” –George Washington himself. Furthermore, Jefferson indeed may have preferred a small federal government. However, far from being his “original intent”, that was his follow-up answer to the bigger question which predated independence: one nation, or many?

While they were divided over the scope and design of the new government, the founding patriots were unanimous in their desire to keep the new states united.  The lines of debate from the continental congress and the federalist papers are evidence enough that the founders were, first-and-foremost,  “intent” on preventing the colonies from crumbling into an American version of Europe, whereby various independent powers would consume the continent in endless war.

The thirteen original states had been established as colonies to an empire, thus had developed economic systems independent of, and often antagonistic to, the interests of the other states. Nothing characterizes this divide better than the southern profligacy of the slave system. For the sake of uniting such disparate interests under a single flag, the founders were forced to establish a stronger central authority than many, namely Jefferson, philosophically approved of.

On slavery, Jefferson wrote that he “trembled” for his country when he reflected that “God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever”. When that justice awoke, the nation was punished not simply with civil war, but with the development of the centralized-state many founders feared no doubt, but feared less than dismemberment itself. 

Divided at its birth by two incompatible systems lead by two incompatible interests, the civil war came. “Both parties deprecated war”, Lincoln said in his second inaugural address, “but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish…”.

One nation, indivisible: the founders’ intent, Lincoln’s legacy, and our inheritance.

  • Artwork
  • Readings
  • Projects

Recent Posts

  • Anti-Gentrification Art in San Francisco
  • HITCHENS POSTERS HERE
  • California Water Map
  • Six Californias?
  • Bay Area tech boom not cause of region’s problems

Also Visit

  • Home
  • Adrian Covert Art
  • Shop
  • Molly Covert Design
  • Facebook

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • pacificvs.com
    • Join 29 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • pacificvs.com
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...