Lincoln Book Review: A Patriot’s History of the United States

 

A Patriot’s History of the United States

From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror

Larry Schweikart, Michael Patrick Allen

From the subtitle, it would be easy to assume A Patriot’s History is a breezy treatment of our nation’s history. From the title, it might also be assumed that this is a polemic tomb. Neither would be correct. To accommodate five centuries of history in a single volume, each episode must be tersely described, but terse does not necessarily mean unacademic. Schweikart and Allen do a superb job of describing the essence of a historic moment without being superficial. Although the authors freely admit to a belief in conservative principles, the book is not a conservative rewriting of history through creative description or omission. The authors do not gloss over some of our uncomfortable past or whitewash occasional spells of truly bad behavior. All in all, this is an excellent survey of American history.

These book reviews have focused on the Civil War and the principal players in that conflict. A Patriot’s History covers much more ground. I had read the book when it first came out and recently reread the two chapters dealing with the Civil War. When lost in the trees, it’s helpful to get a perspective on the forest This book reminded me to always keep an eye the big picture.

I would recommend A Patriot’s History as a reference book or to read cover to cover.

The Myth of Voter Suppression, The Left’s Assault on Clean Elections By Fred Lucas

 

The Myth of Voter Suppression exposes the imbalance between the voter suppression and voter fraud controversies. Although Lucas cites examples of voter suppression in our past, today, voter suppression is a myth. Voter suppression is illegal, minority voting is statistically growing, and extremely few cases of voter suppression have been adjudicated. On the other hand, Lucas demonstrates that voter fraud is real and has a long history in this country.

My favorite historical episode of fraud goes back to the Civil War. For the first time, soldier were allowed to vote by mail. On September 27, Ulysses S. Grant wrote to the Secretary of War: “The exercise of the right of suffrage by the officers and soldiers of armies is a novel thing. A very large proportion of legal voters of the United States are now either under arms in the field, or in hospitals, or otherwise engaged in the military service of the United States … they are American citizens, having still their homes and social and political ties binding them to the States and districts from which they come … In performing this sacred duty they should not be deprived of a most precious privilege. They have as much right to demand that their votes shall be counted in the choice of their rulers as those citizens who remain at home.”

New York Democrats saw an opportunity to use fraudulent votes to defeat Abraham Lincoln. Lucas relates how McClellan’s supporters used forged names and signatures on crate after crate of fake ballots that supposedly came from soldiers. One conspirator even said, “Dead or alive, they all had cast a good vote.” The vote fraud conspirators in this particular case were sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Despite the preponderance of voter fraud being perpetrated by the Democratic Party, many Democrats claim voter fraud is nonexistent or so rare that it’s inconsequential. HR1 demonstrates otherwise. The Democratic Party leadership tried desperately to pass a nationwide voting law that would make cheating easy ... and an easy way to amass or hold political power would unquestionably lead to fraud and the destruction of our republican form of government. Prior to reading The Myth of Voter Suppression, I didn’t know the devilish details of HR1, the “For the People Act.” The name is the exact opposite of the bill’s intent. If properly named, HR1 would be called the “For the Politicians Act.” Lucas’ chapter, “Legalizing Fraud through Voter Rights Legislation” ought to be required reading for every registered voter. Any politician that supports HR1, or one of its derivatives, does not believe that the citizens of this nation should be allowed to pick their leaders. 

This is a well-researched book on a very important subject. I highly recommend it.  

Desperate Engagement by Marc Leepson

 

A lot happened between July 9^th and the 12^th in 1864. Marc Leepson has made this short period of the Civil War the focus of his book Desperate Engagement: How a Little-Known Civil War Battle Saved Washington D. C., and Changed American History.

In the end, the battle changes little other than perhaps delaying the end of the war. General Grant continued his stranglehold on the Confederate Army surrounding Richmond until Lee surrendered at Appomattox. Nonetheless, if the Hail Mary pass had been completed and General Jubal Early had sacked Washington, we might be all speaking with a Southern accent. 

It was close. Heart-stopping close.

The risky moves and countermoves, potential payoff, and unbridled heroism on both sides should have made this an exciting book. The Battle of Monocacy and attempted siege are nicely covered in about four or five chapters with the remaining chapters filled mostly with letters and memoirs of the participants, asides, or research factoids. Civil War buffs should find even the trivia interesting, but a casual reader might view much of this text as fill.

Best Commentaries

Based Opinions with a Dash of Cinnamon

I started my writing career as a magazine columnist. No, not political opinions. My columns were about computer technology. My first book, The Digital Organization, was also a nonfiction, computer technology book. Then I lost control of my senses and wrote Tempest at Dawn, a novelization of the Constitutional Convention. Big subject, big book. And big surprise. I loved storytelling. Been at it ever since, and I have now written eleven novels and several short stories.

Tempest at Dawn, my first novel, brought me some unexpected attention. I had a few scary national television appearances and some surprise endorsements. It also brought me invitations to write for Constituting America and What Would The Founders Think? Soon I was in the thick of political blogging. Along the way, I also wrote for RedState and The American Thinker. It should be obvious from names of these sites that I wrote from a conservative perspective, so, fair warning, Best Commentaries is a collection of conservative opinion pieces.

Here’s a sampling.

We often hear laments that our politicians no longer honor their pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. This is backward. The Constitution was not written for politicians. Our political leaders have no motivation to abide by a two hundred year old restraining order. Americans must enforce the supreme law of the land. The first outsized words of the Constitution read We the People. It’s our document. It was always meant to be ours, not the government’s. It is each and every American’s obligation to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

                                                                        ***

Democrats are disappointed because past campaigns did not go the way they wanted. Occupy Wall Street did not incite class warfare, Black Lives Matter did not start a race war, and Antifa did not expose a vast cadre of neo-Nazis lurking in the background.

                                                                        ***

If you lay every economist in the world end to end, you still won’t reach a conclusion. If you want to carry out bad economic policy, it’s not difficult to find a tenured professor to provide the rationalization. Roosevelt, Carter, Obama, and Biden have all applied disproven Keynesian principles … to the same result. Now, remind me, what was the definition of insanity again?

                                                                        ***

Proponents of Big Government used different nomenclatures to describe their ideal system, but they all have one overriding characteristic—power centralized in government. Socialism, fascism, communism, feudalism, monarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, police states, a unitary state, oligarchies, et. al. concentrate power in the state. The underlying political theology is irrelevant. In each and every case, the individual is subject to control by the state. It doesn’t matter who orders you about. It could be a king, emperor, dictator, a party general secretary, or an elected machine politician. The result is the same. You do as you’re told.

                                                                        ***

The United States of America is exceptional, but we are not exceptional because we are a different people. People are the same the world over. We are exceptional because of the uniqueness of our founding. The Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution were not events. They were processes that took many years to come to fruition. They both engaged an entire nation. They both were guided by clear principles. They both reflected timeless truths that inspired us to move ever closer to greatness.

You can order an e-book, paperback or hard cover at Amazon or order a print version from your local book store. 

If you like it, tell everyone. If you don't, mum's the word.

Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood

 

Lord Charnwood published Abraham Lincoln in 1916. In order to get a clearer perspective of the Civil War, it helps to read books from multiple viewpoints. Lord Charnwood wrote only fifty years after the war, bringing an almost contemporaneous perspective to his depictions. His biography has the advantage of proximity but with enough time elapsed to dampen the passions of the moment. More important, as an English depiction, it is a simultaneously a distant point of view. It is a distance of more than nautical miles. Lord Charnwood also brings the bias of English nobility to his descriptions. This is exceptionally important in gaining an understanding of the diplomatic imperative for both sides. The Confederacy desperately sought European recognition of their legitimacy, while Lincoln did everything in his power to deny international recognition and suppress arms and funding from abroad. Lincoln’s success was arguably pivotal to eventually making victory possible.

 Abraham Lincoln, by Lord Charnwood can be a tough read. A simple, declarative sentence is beyond the baron. This is partly due to the style of the times and partly the way of academics who feel a need to qualify every utterance. Once the reader adjusts to the wordily writing, nuggets of rare perspective make the effort well worthwhile. For example, Thomas Jefferson is not one of my favorite Founders and Lord Charnwood seems to have shared some of my reservations. He also makes other political observations that an American might be reluctant to express.

If you have an interest in the mid-nineteenth century, Abraham Lincoln by Lord Charnwood can be an enlightening read.

Did the Framers get it right?

The Framers interminably debated every little detail of the Constitution. Did they end up getting it right? The Civil War indicates they may have.

Nothing puts stress on government more than war. Especially, a civil war. Superficially, the Confederate Constitution appeared very similar to the United States Constitution. However, there were differences. The Confederate Constitution openly used the word slavery, where the Framers adopted the euphemic, “other persons.” Many of the Framers abhorred slavery and refused to see it referred to outright in the language of the Constitution. The Confederacy made more than semantic changes. In their minds, they corrected errors they felt were decided improperly seventy-three years prior. Some of these, arguably, contributed to the South losing the War for Southern Independence.

In Philadelphia, the Framers argued numerous times over the proper length of term for the president. Some wanted a short term with re-electability, others wanted a long term with no re-electability. The Constitutional Convention settled on a four-year term with unrestricted re-electability, which the Twenty-Second Amendment limited to two terms. The Confederate Constitution adopted a six-year term with no re-electability.

In 1787, most southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed the executive should be nonpolitical, so when they had a chance to write their own constitution, they gave the president the liberty to abstain from politicking. With an above-the-fray executive, they then felt comfortable giving the president more power. Under the Confederate Constitution, the president had a line-item veto and Congress, without a two-thirds majority, could not appropriate money unless requested by the president. In essence, this shifted the power of the purse from Congress to the president.

Jefferson Davis never ran for president. He was selected for one six-year term and, for the most part, ignored politics. Davis was an iconic figure for the Confederate cause, while at the same time, the public held Congress in low regard. Davis used the disparity in their respective reputations to neglect Congress. He did not host meals with congressional leaders, provide patronage, help legislative candidates, speak highly of people to the press, or support bills sponsored by powerful legislators. He openly displayed impatience with people who disagreed with him. As an indicator of Davis’ distain for Congress, he wrote, “Now when we require the brains and the heart of the country in the legislative halls of the Confederacy and of the States, all must have realized how much it is otherwise.” A Charleston Mercury reporter wrote, “He regards any question put to him by Congress as a presumptuous interference in matters which do not concern them.”

Lincoln did not have that luxury. The U.S. Congress constantly challenged his war decisions. The Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, commonly referred to as the War Committee, used oversight powers to wield a potent check on the executive branch. The committee investigated battle defeats, war profiteering, Confederate atrocities, and generally stuck its nose in wherever it wanted. Members often leaked testimony and criticisms to the press, which caused distrust in the War Department and the Union Army. While the Confederate Congress met in secret, the Union Congress broadcast its proceedings at the top of its lungs.

Presidential politicking of congress was one of the great differences between the Union and Confederate governments, but did this affect the outcome of the war? Perhaps, and perhaps significantly.

Lincoln smooched Congress to get legislation passed, appropriations approved, and to garner support for reelection. It may not have felt good to Lincoln at the time, but this constant politicking brought many more minds to the task, built comradery, provided a vent for mistakes, and may have tamped down some ill-conceived moves. The War Committee harangued Lincoln and his cabinet throughout the conflict, but by acting as the catalyst for aggressive debate, the committee may have helped win the war. It certainly caused Lincoln to think long and hard about what needed to be done and how he would get various factions behind his proposed actions.

Near the end of the war, Lincoln won reelection and enjoyed substantial popularity in government and the states that remained in the Union, while the Confederate Congress tried to force President Davis to replace his entire cabinet, stripped him of his commander-in-chief authority, and threatened a vote of no confidence. By this time, of course, a Union victory had become obvious, affecting the respective reputations of the presidents. But Davis has gone down in history as cantankerous, aloof, and averse to taking advice. Perhaps if he had been required to build relationships with the other people in government, the South could have leveraged their early victories to achieve a different outcome.

Did the hyper-political Abraham Lincoln have an advantage over the standoffish Jefferson Davis? Probably. An engaged president knows the thinking of other players and can more easily leverage strengths and mitigate weaknesses. If this be the case, then the Founding Fathers got it right when they settled on a short presidential term with re-electability.

The Real American Tragedy

 

Supposedly, the number of pandemic deaths have exceeded a million. But who’s counting. While the Wuhan virus killed Americans, it cannot kill America. We’ve been through worse, and it looks like we got through this one. The pandemic appears to be burning itself out. They all do. It’s tragic, but the Wuhan virus is a transitory crisis. The real American tragedy didn’t suddenly spring at us, it’s been building for decades.

The real calamity is that we’ve lost trust in our government and in our institutions.

Whoever is in power, roughly half the people view government as malevolent. Not just Americans with different political approaches, but malicious actors out to utterly destroy opponents. The amount of hate and distrust has been illuminated by this pandemic. Governments are supposed to govern, especially during a crisis. It’s beyond difficult to implement a consistent national policy when everyone is screaming that the other party is a pack of tyrants set on stripping opponents of all their rights. There has always been tension in our system; it was designed that way. Creative tension. The kind of push and pull that kept the nation moving ahead without veering off to the extremes, but that creative tension has been twisted and engorged until it threatens to pull the nation apart. American politics have become fierce, unseemly, and harmful to our wellbeing.

Americans used to pull together in crisis. Now we bicker and argue until we amplify the damage any adversary tries to inflict on us. This level of intensity is new, or at least unknown since our Civil War in 1860.

How did our national unity disintegrate before our eyes? Three big reasons: 1) identity politics, 2) embezzled elections, and 3) judicial usurpation.

Identity Politics

Relying on a political philosophy, such as traditional liberalism, requires selling something that doesn’t excite busy people trying to get on with their lives. With identity politics, a party merely figures out a group’s foremost grievance and promises to resolve it. The Democrat Party has used this strategy to enormous success in states with major urban populations. 

Unfortunately, as long as Democrats adhere to identity politics, they will viciously attack any attempt at reconciliation. Identity politics mandates tribalism. Identity politics destroys unity.

No special interest is large enough to comprise a majority, so lots of differing and sometimes conflicting groups are gathered up. For a person to be welcomed in this supposedly big tent, they must join a tribe, never diverge from the group’s narrative, remain unquestionably loyal, and encourage other like-minded people to join. The party leadership then picks at scabs, set opponents up as the oppressors, and appeals to emotions instead of reason.

This is a formula for raucous disunity.

Embezzled Elections

Our republic functioned for almost two and a half centuries because we had faith in our Constitution, free elections, and way of government. Whichever side lost got another chance in a few years. But that trust is waning due to increasingly rigged elections and the unwillingness of Democrats to abide by our election process.

Democrats push every change making registration and voting easier, fight every check against voter fraud, support every change that opens a new path to fraud, push to legalize vote harvesting, and fight the cleansing of voter rolls. Democrat states and cities provides sanctuary, benefits, and driver licenses to illegals. They fight to eliminate the electoral college. But skewing elections goes beyond fraud. It also includes using the permanent government bureaucracy and supposedly independent enterprises to tilt elections.

If after all this, Democrats lose, they deny the legitimacy of the winner. This started in earnest with Al Gore refusing to accept defeat and has escalated to blatant attempts to overturn elections. An unrelenting string of assaults were aimed at removing President Trump from office. Examples include Russian collusion, Pelosi directing non-stop committee investigations, the Mueller probe, Ukraine as a ruse for impeachment, and politicizing the Wuhan virus as a platform for unrelenting and ever-shifting attacks.

Manipulating elections erodes confidence. None of this is by accident. The brazenness is meant to demoralize the electorate. Voting ceases to be an exercise in citizenship and instead becomes a nasty fight to prevail by any means necessary.

Judicial Usurpation

Judiciary usurpation may seem like an outlier, but in fact it is elemental to our current disarray. The Supreme Court now dictates much of our American life and social norms. It overrules Congress and the president, but no one overrules the Supreme Court. The selection of a Supreme Court Justice has become a highly charged emotional event. It’s instructive that political movements spend inordinate resources influencing nominations. They relentlessly advocate for their entrants and hyperventilate fighting a disliked nominee. Everyone knows that these are enormously powerful individuals with life tenure. Everyone also pretends their candidate is an impassive judge who measures decisions based solely on law. If that were so, no one would care who sat on the bench. 

It’s not so … and everyone knows it.

Democrats believe they own the courts and distrust any jurist who doesn’t espouse a progressive bent. Nothing illuminates Democrat duplicity more than a Supreme Court confirmation. When substantive arguments fail, Democrats infallibly turn to character assassination. Bork’s nomination started combative hearings, civil restraint was abandoned with Thomas, and the Kavanaugh hearings were downright slanderous.

The tribunal nature of the supreme court destroys confidence in elections and our system of government. It is no longer balanced, and checks seem impotent. When raw political power emanates from the bench, trust in the system deteriorates.

Americans used to set politics aside during a crisis. Those days may be gone. Now everything is a political battle, political theater, or political sabotage. Distrust, the order of the day.

Will we emerge from these dark times with our American principles reinvigorated? Can a rebirth occur? I’ll leave with the words of Abraham Lincoln.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.”

Busybodies Want to Rule the World

"Seeking perfection in human affairs is a perfect way to destroy them." Jaron Lanier

We live perfection. 

Right now. In this moment. No other humans in all of history can make a similar claim. Look about you. Everything is just as it should be. Even the tiniest change will derail spaceship Earth. The planet is over four billion years old, but now is its moment of perfection. How do I know this to be true? Leftists tell me. Incessantly.

• They harangue me that the temperature is just perfect, and it is worth trillions to keep it within a range of one half degree. 
• I’m reassured daily that every little species and sub-species is precious and animal diversity is perfectly aligned for all of eternity. 
• When I wander into the wilderness, I used to adhere to, "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints." Now footprints are offensive … especially the carbon variety. 
• Every ecosystem is tuned to perfection, and none can be disturbed. 
• All native cultures are sacrosanct and must be preserved as is, with no pollution from Western culture. 
• Food must remain unaltered by man.
• If a building gets older than fifty years, slap a brass plaque on it and committees will preserve it forever … for the well-to-do.
• Apartment rents are perfectly fair and must remain controlled into perpetuity. 
• Do not even think about eliminating a government department or program because each and every one is desperately needed for eternity. 
• Zero population growth assumes the Earth has just the perfect number of people. 

Sustainability is the most powerful word in the English language, which means everything must go on forever and ever. Exactly as is. Want to destroy a movement, idea, or argument, just claim it’s none-sustainable. Want to deflect criticism of a movement, idea, or argument, claim it is vital to sustainability.

Why do Leftists worship the status quo? The simple answer is they’re control freaks.

In truth, Leftists don’t really believe everything is perfect.  They just can’t abide change. Any change. Change is frightening … shake in your boots scary. An educated populous, free speech, social and geographic mobility, and competition cause change. Nasty and unpredictable change. And capitalism is the horror of horrors because it incents massive, continuous change. The uncertainty boggles the mind. Everything must be held in balance or Earth might spin out of control.

The rest of us might ignore these phobic busybodies except for their incessant need to control not just things, but people. People cause change, so uncontrolled people represent a threat. If the public does not submit to the approved theocracy, then the progressive vision might be stifled. That cannot happen, so speech must be policed using political correctness and more stringent means. Ideas need to be managed, debates closed, and science declared settled. Education must be carefully crafted to discourage deviations from the true orthodoxy. If Leftists could only control people, they will achieve stability in their lives and heck, save the planet to boot.

We may wish that they would retreat permanently to their safe spaces, but that will never happen. Safe spaces are used to discipline apostolates, plan insurgencies, and reinvigorate the psyche. After a respite, they re-enter our disorderly world to get people to think, speak, and behave properly. Progressives believe humans can be perfected. People just need direction. Oh, a few less of those pesky humans would help too.

Is it possible for Leftists to achieve their utopian goal of a safe and predictable life for all? Of course. The Dark Ages held change in check for centuries. All you need is enough political power to keep everyone in place. The entire planet can be fundamentally transformed into a safe space. Real perfection can be achieved. Our planetary thermostat will be regulated so that melting icecaps, severe weather, illegal migration, and sweat will become things of the past. Laws will ensure that humans eat only wholesome food prescribed by learned tribunals. Speech will be harmless, albeit boring. To keep the masses pliant, sex will be encouraged for any and all purposes except procreation. Every government bureaucracy will be self-perpetuating with independent funding with no oversight from spiteful elected officials. People in the hinterlands will be rounded up and stuffed into congested cities in order to regulate their daily lives. The remainder of our planet will be set off-limit so nature's critters can frolic unmolested.

It will all work perfectly. Leftists are confident because they have deemed themselves the very best specimens of humanity. They are wise, benevolent, and non-offensive. Besides, Native American reservations have given progressives almost two centuries of experience administering controlled safe spaces.

What could possibly go wrong?

The more things change …

In 1856, Senator Sumner from Massachusetts gave a mocking speech meant to ridicule slave owning Democrats. Democrats would have none of it. They puffed up with sanctimony and called Sumner’s speech “self-righteously insolent.” They believed slavery a general good and a Republican had no right to challenge their narrative. A day or so later, Congressman Preston Brooks waltzed into the Senate chamber and marched up to Senator Sumner and blindsided him with his cane. Southern senators could have stopped him, but instead watched as he beat Sumner on the head with all his might.

Sumner was sent to the hospital and suffered incapacitation for nearly five years. Brooks was quoted as saying that it was fortuitous that he caught Sumner in “a helpless attitude” because Sumner had superior strength and if mindful, he would have needed to shoot him with his revolver.

The entire South applauded and exulted Brooks for his bravery. When Republican Congressman Burlingame chastised Brooks for his brutish behavior, Brooks challenged Burlingame to a duel. Challenges to duels then became a craze as Southerners taunted anyone brave enough to speak out against slavery.

By 1858, slavery’s extension into the territories no longer appeared imminent. In the 1916 biography Abraham Lincoln, Lord Charnwood wrote that Republicans saw “no harm in shifting towards some less provocative principle on which more people at the moment might agree. Confronted with Northern politicians who would reason in this fashion stood a united South whose leaders were accustomed to make the Union government go which way they chose and had no disposition to compromise in the least.” Lincoln objected to being forced to accept morally wrong principles, so he refused to espouse the accepted cant that slavery was a general good. Charnwood gave this as the reason why establishment Republicans initially fought Lincoln’s candidacy.

It seems, after more than one hundred and sixty years, nothing has changed in either party’s behavior. Yesterday, I saw a photograph of a person in front of the Supreme Court proudly holding a sign that said, “Abortion is good for Everyone.” 

Replace the word abortion with slavery and the slogan is identical to the Democratic Party catchphrase in 1858.

Grant Takes Command by Bruce Catton

 

When asked, what sort of man is Grant, Lincoln replied that Ulysses S. Grant was “the quietest little fellow you ever saw. The only evidence you have that he’s in any place is that he makes things git! Wherever he is, things move."

Lincoln explained that every other general briefing him before a battle told him that he was short some crucial resource to ensure victory, but, if ordered, they would proceed anyway. This essential resource was almost always cavalry. Lincoln claimed their real purpose was to shift responsibility to him. When Grant took charge, he immediately recommended reassigning twenty thousand horseless cavalrymen to the infantry. Since there was no way to acquire horses for every man designated as cavalry, these idle soldiers were only held in reserve as a handy excuse. Grant recognized the duplicity and removed the excuse before his first battle.

In this biography, Bruce Catton does an excellent job describing the man and his military philosophy. Grant reminded me of General Patton, a warrior through and through. Both believed that to decrease casualties in war, you don’t minimize the fallen in a specific battle, you win the war to stop the killing.

Catton relates a story about a grizzled sergeant leaning against a fence post when a comrade came up.  The sergeant jerked a thumb at a man in the distance and remarked: “That’s Grant. I hate to see that old cuss around. When that old cuss is around there’s sure to be a big fight on hand.”

General U.S. Grant on the Military vote

American Founding documents contend that people have a natural right to form and reform governments. The Declaration of Independence states, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." 

Under that principle, elections are sacrosanct. 

Despite a raging Civil War, the United States held elections on November 4, 1863. As Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Ulysses S. Grant had to set the policy for military voting. On September 27, he wrote the following letter (abridged) to Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

The exercise of the right of suffrage by the officers and soldiers of armies is a novel thing. It has, I believe, generally been considered dangerous to constitutional liberty and subversive of military discipline. But our circumstances are novel and exceptional. A very large proportion of legal voters of the United States are now either under arms in the field, or in hospitals, or otherwise engaged in the military service of the United States. Most of these men are not regular soldiers in the strict sense of that term; still less are they mercenaries, who give their services to the Government simply for its pay, having little understanding of the political questions or feeling little or no interest in them. On the contrary they are American citizens, having still their homes and social and political ties binding them to the States and districts from which they come and to which they expect to return. They have left their homes temporarily to sustain the cause of their country in the hour of its trial. In performing this sacred duty they should not be deprived of a most precious privilege. They have as much right to demand that their votes shall be counted in the choice of their rulers as those citizens who remain at home. Nay, more, for they have sacrificed more for their country.

 I state these reasons in full, for the unusual thing of allowing armies in the field to vote, that I may urge on the other hand that nothing more than the fullest exercise of this right should be allowed, for anything not absolutely necessary to this exercise cannot but be dangerous to the liberties of the country. The officers and soldiers have every means of understanding the questions before the country. The newspapers are freely circulated, and so, I believe, are the documents prepared by both parties to set forth the merits and claims of their candidates. Beyond this nothing whatever should be allowed. No political meetings, no harangues from soldiers or citizens, and no canvassing of camps or regiments for votes.

 As it is intended that all soldiers entitled to vote shall exercise that privilege according to their own convictions of right, unmolested and unrestricted, there will be no objection to each party sending to armies, easy of access, a number of respectable gentlemen to see that these views are fully carried out.

Modern Americans should follow suit and ensure that secure, honest, and fair elections are a binding principle of this nation.

 

The Timeworn Apostate: A Short Story for the Ages

I have a new short story available on Amazon. I'm reminded of the Monty Python classic introduction: "And Now for Something Completely Different." This short story is nothing like my prior work but it has already become one of my favorites. I hope you enjoy it.

A person can have so much wealth that boredom encourages odd pastimes. John Armstrong buys other people’s dreams, then a chance encounter changes the course of his listless life.

Will his reward match his deeds?

Steve Dancy Short Stories Published

In addition to the seven novel-length Steve Dancy Tales, Amazon now offers two Dancy short stories. "Snake in the Grass" was fun to write because the story is told in third person from Joseph McAllen's point-of-view. (All of the series novels are written in first person from Steve Dancy's point-of-view.)

I hope you enjoy the stories.

Snake in the Grass

A lone wrangler with a fine herd of horses goes berserk in the middle of nowhere. Steve Dancy and Joseph McAllen must decide whether to ride off or help the crazed boy.

Relentless

In a remote wilderness, a band of outlaws chase Steve Dancy. They want his horse. They want his gear. They want his money. And they want his life.

The Truth of the War Conspiracy of 1861 by H W Johnstone

 

This booklet was published in 1921 by a veteran of the Civil War. The author’s intent is to advocate for The Cause and expose the “truth.” I’ve read several modern-day defenses of The Cause, but I wanted to get the perspective of someone closer in time to the conflict. A participant was even better, although Johnstone served for only an unexplained eight months. Unfortunately, time and participation provided few novel insights. I shouldn't have been surprised because years earlier Jefferson Davis had articulated the dogma of The Cause in his two histories of the Confederated States of America.

Johnstone presents the case that a duplicitous President Lincoln started the war by reinforcing Forts Sumter and Pickens, the last Union military presence in the seceded states. First, the duplicitous part. In his inaugural, Lincoln said, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government.” All other military installations had been confiscated prior to his inaugural, so he could only have been speaking about Sumter and Pickens.

What act started the war? Secession of seven states in response to the election of a Republican or Lincoln taking office despite threats of assassination? The confiscation of Federal property under threat of physical attack or denial of weapons, munitions, and battlements to a belligerent? Does relentless bombardment of Sumter constitute an act of war or providing food and water to those starving soldiers? The South had been threatening war ever since a split Democratic Party guaranteed the election of a Republican. They made good on their threats.

Despite the reality of the situation, Johnstone paints Lincoln as despotic for not surrendering to the demands of the seceded states. Prior to inauguration, did he distance himself from Seward and the Peace Conference? He did. In his mind, he did not yet have authority to intervene. Did he dispatch war ships to accompanying the resupply ships? He did, but he sent the South Carolina governor a message that he would peaceably resupply the fort unless met with resistance. To deal with resistance if encountered, he needed naval war ships. Did Lincoln maneuver to put Jefferson Davis in a box? He did. And he did this successfully because he was a better politician.

Johnstone was right about one thing. The war could have been avoided if Lincoln had acceded to every demand. Forever. 

Since the Constitutional Convention, slave states had been demanding that the North acquiescence to their peculiar institution or they would bolt. Bolt they did. Not over slavery in their own states, but because the Republican platform vowed to use federal powers to stop any further expansion of slavery.

Perhaps the war was inevitable. Once the South was independent, new demands of their neighbor would never cease. Sooner or later, there would be one demand too many.

LAND OF LINCOLN: ADVENTURES IN ABE'S AMERICA by Andrew Ferguson

The Land of Lincoln

This is a fun memoir of a modern-day search for the real Abraham Lincoln. In childhood, Andrew Ferguson had been a Lincoln buff but had developed other interests in adulthood. The enigmatic and “shut-mouth” Lincoln provided pundits an open field for speculation. As a result, a plethora of interpretations have been tossed around that purport to explain his personality, beliefs, motivations, administration, family, and even sexual orientation. Glorifying tributes stand beside hate filled censures. Ferguson trekked across the country to get a fix on the man. He traversed the Lincoln Heritage Trail with his family, visited major and not-so-major memorials, interviewed Lincoln collectors, gawked at Lincoln impersonators, and talked to guides, academics, and park rangers. Lincoln remained elusive, but Ferguson’s wit and lively writing style kept the quest entertaining and educational … although the reader may learn more about modern-day Americans than they learn about our sixteenth president.

I enjoyed the journey. Thanks, Andrew, for taking me along on the ride.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

The Lincoln Myth by Steve Berry

When writing a historical book, sometimes you need a recess from hard history. I thought The Lincoln Myth by Steve Berry would provide an appropriate break. Instead of relaxing, I found the book annoying. The Lincoln Myth interlaces Mormon history and a trendy premise about Abraham Lincoln into a modern-day thriller. The premise probably came from The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, a popular 2009 book that contended that the South had a right to secede, and the Civil War was unnecessary. DiLorenzo went further stating that eliminating slavery was not a goal of the conflict and only afterwards used as a justification. I believe this premise an over-simplification, but I’ll postpone explaining why until I review The Real Lincoln.

What drew me to the book was the Lincoln and Constitution history interwoven into the story. I wrote my own Lincoln mystery/thriller (The Shut Mouth Society) and a novelization of the Constitutional Convention (Tempest at Dawn), so I found it jarring to read Madison’s convention notes and finding material I knew wasn’t present. Berry had a viewpoint with little evidence to support that his viewpoint was correct, so he altered existing documentation and invented entirely new documentation. I objected less to the invented documentation because it disappeared with a novelist sleight of hand. Perfectly legitimate. Altering Madison’s notes, however, seemed lazy and unnecessary to support his plot. Berry was making a political point by modifying the historical record. If omitted, the plot could have moved along the same path without a jarring interruption that defiled Madison's notes.

As a thriller, The Lincoln Myth succeeds but not as well as Berry's other novels. 

Bitterly Divided: The South's Inner Civil War

 

Bitterly Divided by David Williams makes sense. If the political establishment in a bunch of states decided to secede, there would obviously be inhabitants who retained a stronger loyalty to the United States of America. After all, they had been proud U.S. citizens for their entire life. I bet you saw a but coming. The but is that although Williams presents voluminous evidence of insurgence within the CSA, it is not clear that it materially hampered the Confederacy’s war efforts until the last year or so.

The catchphrase, ‘rich man’s war, poor man’s fight,’ may have been a truism, but Southern men continued to fight until victory became hopeless or they received news from home that their families were starving. Williams contends that slaveholders masterminded the war but, for the most part, non-slave holders fought it. Three-fourths of southern whites owned no slaves, so arithmetic alone proves Williams correct. 

Statistical data shows that by every economic measure, the North far outperformed the South. The only area where the South exceeded the North was in income disparity. Williams writes: “On the Civil War’s eve, nearly half the South’s personal income went to just over a thousand families.” The rich were very rich and few in number. The uneducated poor white were as omnipresent as slaves. 

At the start of the war, a recruitment broadside oddly read, “To arms! Our Southern soil must be defended. We must not stop to ask who brought about the war, who is at fault, but let us go and do battle… and then settle the question who is to blame.”

Today, that poster may not appear convincing, but decades of Democrat propaganda had bred hatred for Yankees and instilled fear of “Black Republicans.” Repeatedly, poor whites were told that freed slaves would “come into competition, associate with them and their children as equals—be allowed to testify in court against them—sit on juries with them, march to the ballot box by their sides, and participate in the choice of their rulers—claim social equality with them—and ask the hands of their children in marriage.”

When the conflict began, relentless propaganda claimed the North had invaded the South, but the Confederate Army was a reality well before Manassas. Prior to that opening battle, the North had only resisted Confederate confiscation of United States property in the seceded states. Still, men believed that they went to fight an enemy that had violated the hallowed land of the South. Why?

Jefferson Davis believed slavery gave every white person an elevated position in society independent of their lot in life. Were the poor fighting to retain this artificially elevated position? Not sure, but I’ll keep reading to find the answer.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

Can you find the difference in the photographs?

 

If you said five were in America and one in communist China, you would be correct. 

Respond by email to claim your prize ... a free mask.

Democrats are not as good as their word.

A version of this article was originally published at American Spectator

 

Democrats sure know how to talk.

They espouse lofty goals, heartfelt sympathy, and strident vows to instill fairness for all Americans.  They promise to fulfill every aspiration and repair all grievances.  Democrats unselfconsciously paint themselves as the good guys … and Republicans as rapacious villains.

However, when Democrats act, it’s counter to their good words.  Here’s a few examples.

They profess support for the working class but act to harm their livelihood. 

When outsourcing became the rage, the working class needed a powerful advocate.  Democrats abandoned them.  Instead of championing industrial union members, they dropped them like hot potatoes to advocate for unionized government employees.  Secondly, the livelihoods of the middleclass fell when Democrats encouraged illegal immigration.  The one-two punch devastated the American working class.

They say they’re fighting voter suppression but rig the system to steal elections. 

Democrats push every change making registration and voting easier, fight every check against voter fraud, support every change that opens a new path to fraud, push to legalize vote harvesting, and fight the cleansing of voter rolls.  Democrat controlled states and cities provides sanctuary, benefits, and driver licenses to illegals.  They talk a good game, but in truth, Democrats act against the principle of fair elections.

They profess support for the downtrodden but act to harm their future.

Democrats have controlled many major cities and a few states for decades.  These bastions of progressivism are stark examples of how they govern.  Most Americans who are deprived of hope reside inside these districts.  Words don’t put food on the table, keep children safe, or provide the tools for a better future.  But words are all they get.

They preach social justice but act inconsistent with the goal.

Equal opportunity for all?  Not really.  Democrats deny or rip away support if anyone speaks contrary to the Democrat Party Line. Political obedience determines social justice. They talk big in support of LBQ and women’s issues but import intolerant cultures who do them harm. Democrats ruthlessly pursue Republicans accused of sexual crimes but stubbornly cover for accused Democrats. They promise affordable higher education but direct government money to college administrations who keep raising tuition. Social justice is not really about people. It’s a misanthropic tool to gather up political power.

They claim concern for pandemic deaths but act to increase death count.

Democrats say they want fewer virus deaths, but New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, and Michigan (all Democrat run states) made it illegal to turn away or test nursing home returnees, knowing full well that over a third of virus deaths occur in nursing homes.  They say they’re horrified at the death count but provide financial incentives for doctors to attribute every death to the virus.  Additionally, lockdowns and vaccination mandates have increased the risk for every other terminal ailment through non-diagnosis, non-treatment, and delayed surgeries.

They say nobody is above the law but constructed a duel justice system.

Democrats holler incessantly that no one is above the law, but shield elected Democrats, illegal aliens, and convicted criminals from the law.  They release prisoners back into society while arresting Americans for overzealously protesting government officials.  They coddle illegals and give them rights and benefits American citizens don’t enjoy.  Elected Democrat officials are seldom indicted despite endless exposed crimes, government corruption everyone can see, and grievous violations of our national security laws.  Democrats clamor for equal justice, but their actions built a two-tiered justice system.  One for them … and another for the rest of us.

They tout democracy but act totalitarian

Democrats invoke the Framers, the Bible, and altruistic intentions to prove their democratic bona fides.  Not only do they portray themselves as the true champions of democracy, but Republican opponents are Nazis, fascists, murders, racists, and haters of every imaginable hue. Yet their actions speak otherwise.  They cheer the police state tactics of the FBI, see nothing amiss in federal agencies working on their behalf, and ignore the wishes of the populous that go against their doctrines.  Nothing exposes leadership style more than a crisis.  Republican governors impose sensible restraints for the shortest time possible.  Democrat governors impose draconian measures beyond CDC guidelines and extend them indefinitely.

Talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder than words.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Your word is your bond.  All these axioms are foreign to Democrats.  Instead they believe perception is reality.  A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.  Principles are malleable to the moment.  And a sucker’s born every minute.

Fortunately for the United States of America, the public is catching on.  Perhaps the greatest gift of President Trump has bestowed upon this great nation is to expose Democrat Party leaders for who they really are.  It’s not pretty a pretty sight.

Is the word "all" the most important word in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were interesting characters. Exactly the type of characters a novelist needs to carry a story. In writing Maelstrom, I had a scene where Lincoln addresses Congress after a recess. (As customary at the time, his address was read by a clerk.) Not much has happened during the recess. Eleven states had seceded from the Union, Fort Sumter had been bombarded and surrendered, a piece of Virginia had been occupied, and Lincoln had exceeded his executive powers to spend unauthorized money, build an army, and suspend habeas corpus among other things.

He desperately needed Congress to backfill behind him.

This was a crucial address. Important for Lincoln and the country. The address was not one of his well-known speeches, but I was struck by the clarity and simplicity of the explanation of why he took these actions.

Lincoln said it was a struggle for maintaining a form of government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life.”

On the cusp of war, Lincoln repeatedly used the word “all.” He had previously stated that this was the most important word in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and had reputedly written that word over and over again on pieces of paper.

I cannot think of a loftier goal for government. Perhaps in this age of divisiveness, we should all write the word “all” over and over again.

Lincoln on the Verge, Ted Widmer

Lincoln on the Verge, Thirteen Days to Washington

Over 15,000 books have been written about Abraham Lincoln, supposedly more than any other person except Jesus. This tower of books at the Ford's Theatre Center for Education and Leadership is a tribute to the man and the authors who have written about him. (This is actually a metal sculpture using replicas of about half the books.) The Center is across the street from Ford’s Theater where the president was assassinated.

Because I intend to add to the pile, I own about forty of these books. Every Lincoln author looks for a unique perspective. Some see themselves as myth busters. Others delve into a niche of his supposed psyche to unearth a differently tempered person. Responsible historians frequently zero in on a single event or unusual theme to add fresh insights. Entire books are dedicated to a single speech, battle, or political issue.

Ted Widmer made a great choice of subject matter. Lincoln on the Verge concentrates on the thirteen days it took Lincoln to journey by train from Springfield to Washington. It’s a fascinating story and it illustrates the political savvy of this supposed country bumpkin. Widmer introduces us to the president-elect as he travels across a great land he knows will soon be thrown into turmoil. What could Lincoln accomplish on this tedious trip? You’ll discover he could do quite a bit. He engineered the journey of the Presidential Special so he could more easily save the nation after inauguration.

Widmer has a clear and concise writing style that keeps the narrative moving, and his matter-of-fact presentation allows the reader to mine for new insights without being led to the trough. 

If you’re a Lincoln enthusiast, or merely curious, you’ll enjoy this book.

              (This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)

War on the Waters, James M. McPherson

 

With the exception of the Monitor vs. Merrimack (CSS Virginia), naval battles get short shrift in Civil War books. McPherson certainly fills that gap with War on the Waters, The Union and Confederate Navies, 1861-1865. Land battles were certainly decisive, but the Union may have lost the war without Gideon Welles and the Navy Department. McPherson even makes a strong argument that Rear Admiral David Glasgow Farragut deserves to be ranked with generals Grant and Sherman when giving credit for the Union victory.

Inventions and innovations by both the Confederate States and the United States revolutionized naval warfare. Steam-powered ships, screw propeller driven ships, ironclads, submarines, weaponry, and naval tactics all made major advancement during those four years. By Appomattox, the United States owned the largest navy in the world, and arguably the most technologically advanced.

War on the Waters does an admirable job of describing blue water and brown water (river) battles and in explaining the significance of each clash. I found the battles that required cooperation between the Army and Navy of particular interest. As an added bonus, International law on blockades is more fully described than in other history books.

McPherson’s no nonsense writing style can sometimes verge on dull, but he always pulls the reader back to the narrative in the nick of time.

I recommend this book to all those who have an interest in the Civil War, naval battles, technology advancement, or military politics. War on the Waters is informative and a good read.

(This is a research book for Maelstrom, a sequel to Tempest at Dawn.)