Could This Be an Antebellum Age?
By: Lance Morrow (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In John Milton's "Paradise Lost," Lucifer—who only yesterday had been God's favorite—consoles himself with this thought: "The mind is its own place and in itself / Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n." The United States of America, another of God's erstwhile favorites, now and then performs the same trick of the mind. At the moment, the country seems committed to the second option, as if united in a natural preference for hell.
It's happened before. The American theme now is violence and the promise of violence (a mirror of the pandemic, perhaps). Homicide rates are dramatically up, not merely because of the mass shootings but in the routine, even ritualized weekend carnage in Chicago and other cities.
A young man from California, heavily armed, allegedly turned up at Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Maryland with a plan to assassinate him over the issues of abortion and guns. Authorities say the would-be killer thought that such a political and, as it were, moral murder would give meaning to his life. Now police stand 24-hour guard at the homes of all Supreme Court justices.
Jane’s Revenge, a sort of pro-choice Ku Klux Klan, is calling for a “Night of Rage” if the court overturns Roe v. Wade . Elderly baby boomers will catch the reference to the Weather Underground’s “Days of Rage” in 1969. Across the country, so many pro-life centers have been firebombed that it’s becoming a trend. A craze, you might say.
A candidate for U.S. Senate from Missouri has run a campaign video that shows him carrying a long gun and a sidearm, leading a mock commando raid, on the hunt for “RINOS”—Republicans in name only, i.e., anti-Trump Republicans. Nearby in the American jungle, Illinois Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger reports mail threatening to execute him, his wife and newborn child. Mr. Kinzinger is an anti-Trump member of the Jan. 6 committee.
Sometime in 2020 or 2021, Americans seem to have crossed a psychic barrier and plunged into new territory, a place where things aren’t quite as forbidden as they used to be. Citizens fell into dubious battle with one another, to use Milton’s phrase. People taught themselves to think outside the box. Crowds learned that they could, for example, burn down a police precinct and the police would flee. You could try to set fire to a federal courthouse; you could try to torch the Church of the Presidents in Lafayette Square, across from the White House. You could loot stores and walk away with stuff and the law wouldn’t follow.
The pandemic churned up tremendous new parables: the scene in which Derek Chauvin knelt on George Floyd’s neck and Floyd died; the scene in which Americans—some in a kind of tourist’s trance, some in a fanatic’s rage—poured or pounded their way into the U.S. Capitol. It was something between a pep rally and a lynch mob.
The routine at the southern border reminds me of the scene in “Casablanca” in which Captain Renault orders “a bottle of your best champagne” for Victor Laszlo. When Laszlo protests that the gesture is too extravagant, Renault smiles and explains: “Oh, please, monsieur. It is a little game we play. They put it on the bill, I tear up the bill. It is very convenient.” Security at the border has become such a game. There are laws against illegal entry; the Biden Democrats tear them up. It is very convenient.
In all of this, the relationship between fantasy and actuality—and, more deeply, between self and country, between Americans and other Americans—has changed, has darkened. The rules (written or unwritten) are different now.
The country’s political manners are not what they were. To this the progressives’ cult of change replies: So what? And Donald Trump agrees. You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. There is truth in the thought; on the other hand, it is a favorite metaphor of monsters. The law itself—the principle of law, the authority of law—is sorely tested and feels as if it is being broken. When prosecutors refuse to prosecute real crimes, society is morally under water.
There’s a queasy sense of crisis. Are things all that bad? What does it add up to? Is the country merely traveling over a bad stretch of road? It has happened before, in the second half of the 1960s, for example. Is it too much to say that this moment feels like the 1850s? It was in 1856 that Rep. Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery South Carolina Democrat, caned the abolitionist Republican Sen. Charles Sumner almost to death on the floor of the Senate. It took Sumner three years to recover.
In its violent certainty, in its blind self-righteousness, the deed has a savor of 2022 about it. Eighteen fifty-six was a presidential election year in which three mediocre candidates contended: Democrat James Buchanan, Republican John C. Frémont and Know Nothing former President Millard Fillmore. Buchanan won. He turned out to be one of the worst American presidents, in the dismal company of Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding. As it happened, that worst president, Buchanan, preceded the best president, Abraham Lincoln—to whom he bequeathed a divided country and a civil war.
Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His latest book is “God and Mammon: Chronicles of American Money.”
Tags
Who is online
632 visitors
I suspect few here have heard of Lance Morrow.
The American left reacts to events that it doesn't like with violence because the left knows it can get away with it. The left is in charge.
Yesterday we saw their anger even here on this site.
Anyone versed in the meaning of America knows who he is... Much akin to the Will Rogers of our time....
And of course, the left will hate him the same as they hate anyone that speakest the truth.... But him more than most, cause he is published and acclaimed, so he must be vilified and pilloried...
Yes, it feels like 1856, the nation is waiting for that spark to start the conflagration... The hateful players are already in place....
I hope it passes like the 60's and 70's did and pray that we never see that spark...
The anger is palpable, and we already know the purveyors of anger will act upon such... They have no room for anything except which they believe...
The old adage, history repeats itself, it is up to we citizens in the middle to see that it doesn't...
That era passed with the protestor's progeny coming to power in 2020.
It's actually their grandchildren, I agree 100%.... People who really didn't fight for anything claiming the moral foundation of righteousness...
Like they have any idea of their grandparents morality at all...
I hate to give away a future title, but I regard them as the morally grotesque.
If you were around yesterday, you got a glimpse of it.
It could be an antebellum age. I had an auntie Bella, and she was pretty aged.
I guess some can laugh about it.
No offense, my friend.
I can laugh about it because I'm not an American. If I were, I'd be crying my eyes out about what my country has become.
I'm crying on the inside
We are now in probably the best possible place for abortion to stop dominating national politics. It's wreaked havoc on the Senate and the Federal Judiciary for 50 years. Letting the states decide will not make everyone happy. The fact that the extremes on both sides are not getting what they want (unlimited abortion access for everyone, severely restricted access to abortion for everyone) is the best available solution I'm aware of.
But I doubt it will last. The Democrats are already talking about destroying the filibuster to codify an abortion regime even more liberal than Roe. Which of course means that as soon as the Republicans can a super slim majority like the Democrats have now, they will turn around and ban abortion (or close to it) nationwide.
Federalism exists for just this purpose. We should let it work.
I think it will. Certain states, like California will offer abortion right up until birth and provide a reimbursement to those who travel there from other states, while states like Florida may set up strict restrictions on abortion.
I'm talking about the people who can't stand that people in Florida might prefer something different than those in California. People were protesting in LA last night for instance, because they can't force people in other states to do what they want.
I understand. They want the federal government involved to impose their views on everyone.
Garland needs to be impeached as the next congress 1st order of business!
"What is unacceptable is for the attorney general of the United States to forget his duty to enforce the law and instead to express publicly his contempt for it. The Supreme Court has ruled today and Merrick Garland has issued a press release in opposition to the ruling as if he is a political candidate running a campaign against the justices. In a release from the Department of Justice Mr. Garland states :
Stare Decisis....
Stare Decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.
And it doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, just every other court below it...
If it applied to the Supreme Court, then considering the 250 years of legal precedent that came before, applying Stare Decisis would have prevented the ruling in Roe in the first place...
Garland is a prime example of the belief in the law being subject to political whims rather than actual reality...
Although the Court uses Stare Decisis as a guiding principle it is not absolute. The Court also reserves the right to revisit, review and overturn cases it deems wrongfully decided:
People don't seem to get that Stare Decisis is not an absolute command, as you point out. It's a guiding principle. It doesn't bind a Supreme Court justice, it's essentially a reminder to be cautious in overturning precedents.
It is funny that the same people who scream the loudest about respect for precedent when it came to Roe will turn around and demand Heller or Citizens United be overturned with the next breath.
Is that your list of wrongly decided cases?
I hope not.
Absolutely...
People who don't believe in such should review Marbury vs Madison again... The Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of laws in this nation and as such have all powers needed to correct errors in the law... The entire body of law....
Many would agree, including the SCOTUS.
I hope not.
Why?
Because all this tells me is that you would like to set this country back more than 100 years. There is a reason that these cases stood the test of time...
You either follow the Constitution or you make laws on emotion. I prefer the former.
There is a reason that these cases stood the test of time...
Look at the list again. How many were overturned?
For more than 100 years these decisions stood the test of time because they were based on law. You just don't like them.
Perrie, those on the list were overturned!
{chuckle}
Sorry couldn't help that one girl, the Supreme Court eventually didn't like them either, and overturned every single one of them...
For stating an opinion? You have got to be kidding.
I'm not kidding. He has also refused to enforce 18 U.S.C. § 1507, failed to recuse the department on Hunter Biden and unleashed the FBI on parents. Right now democrats have temporarily pushed pause on the January 6th hearings in order to lead an insurrection against the federal government and he is part of the incitement of mob violence.
And you think he's rational?
I find it ironic that the same people who find fault in Garland are the same people who have an issue with the Jan 6 proceedings.
For the same reason: PARTISANSHIP.
We learned a few things from those hearings. I myself was happy to see the video of Barr. It finally put the 2020 election behind me. That being said, if Pelosi had followed precedent, more people would have taken those hearings seriously. BTW, the hearings or how people feel about them are no defense for the egregious actions of Garland.
No more egregious than Trump. And yes all of this is partisanship.
You are doing a lot of whataboutism today. Garland was picked by Joe Biden. Garland is guilty of everything I listed and thus worthy of impeachment next year. He is in clear violation of his oath.
No, I am not. I am drawing a comparison. On one hand, you dismiss anything said at the Jan 6th hearings and then jump all over Garland.
I'm sorry, I view it as the same thing.
And I just demonstrated how those hearings had a profound influence on me. POST 6.2.3
I'm sorry, I view it as the same thing.
I'm sorry that you didn't fully read my comments.
Merrick Garland = bullet dodged with the SCOTUS.
Unfortunately he seems to reinforce that nearly every week now.
AOC on overturning Roe v. Wade: "A lot of these institutions were built on a very creaky foundation. We have to fill the streets. Right now, elections are not enough. We need to show up everywhere."
https:// trib.al/XKoeskp
That is called freedom of speech.
Amazingly, she didn't first have to apply to the state demonstrating a specific need to exercise that.
or is it an incitement of violence?
Huh?
Filling the streets means what? What does that lead to?
I think we can leave the NY law out of this.
Protests, which are protected by the 1st.
We saw it in 2020. I fear we will see it again.
I think it will be just protests.
Ok, Perrie. We shall soon see who is right. It may come as soon as the sun goes down tonight.
they want to see how many people they can get to jump up and down on a couch like tom cruise on the oprah show .....
The greatest right of all is that right to protest, until the other side does it. Then we have counter protests, a pitched battle and the FBI cracking down on one side.
It sounds to me that you are hoping for riots, to justify your view of the left (although I don't see choice as right or left but a woman's issue). I, on the other hand, hope that any protest would be a peaceful one.
Come on Mark. This issue has touched almost every family in America. It's about a lot more than that.
Whether you believe it or not I don't want violence.
to justify your view of the left
My view of the left is more than justified.
(although I don't see choice as right or left but a woman's issue).
And I believe in your state it will be and legally so.
I, on the other hand, hope that any protest would be a peaceful one.
There is no other hand between us.
Do tell?
The Court’s decision was neither about a woman’s “right to choose” nor the sanctity of life.
It was simply about undoing previous political overreach by an activist liberal Court.
I feel the same way about both extremes. Sadly that is what brought us to this place.
I understand. You see them as somehow equal.
On that we have always disagreed.
perrie , many issues touch everyone in this country i have no argument about that .
it just appears to me that right now there are some that think the that things are better dictated from the top down and not the way that it was origionally thought of from the bottom up. IE solving problems at the lowest governmental level.
i saw an article /opinion piece about a week ago talking about how divided the country actually is , and mentioning and exploring a 2 state solution , i dont think that will ever happen , and some here will say that issue was solved back in the 1860 s , i say a lot of issues were supposedly solved but were later overturned in time . we have been watching that happen lately.
hell we see it here on site , if someone doesnt get the response they think is correct (ie jumping up and down in fury) the person not doing so gets attacked and maligned or belittled if they refuse to toe the accepted line , they automatically become a deplorable and get sniped at every oppertunity on any discussion , best answer to that , is make those doing so look like the asses they are acting like . some use sarcasm some use whittasism , and insults right back ,and some will just look and tell the other to go pound sand in a dry hole on the beach ..
Yikes! Think you got lost in the shuffle Drinker - but your comment is important to acknowledge .. 'our' rights and freedoms are fragile. Seemingly it is okay to subvert the Constitution when it comes to firearms .. but freedom of speech will be next in line, it is all ready happening on college campuses around the country.. even in the hall of congress... sad!
Peace
Vic i have no problem with people assembling and peacefully protesting , it was one of the fundemental rights i learned about growing up around Boston and delving into history .
My problem starts when it is no longer peaceful and chaos ensues , after that all bets off , and i bet you can think of a couple way i may counter such actions if it becomes a threat to me , my own and property .
Tell that to the right to life facilities that are getting trashed more increasingly these days.
I’m with Vic and believe the worst is yet to come but I hope you’re right and we are wrong.
As I said Perrie, I never want violence, but I do know the radical left and I was even right about how long it would take:
Jane’s Revenge should be classified as a terrorist organization.
Never happen though with the current head of the DOJ.
Calling the Supreme Court illegitimate because a ruling went against her is no different than falsely claiming an election was rigged.
They are attempts to delegitimize our government.
And what about her saying our institutions were built on creeky foundations?
Thus far those institutions have barely survived the assault by the left!
AOC could have just as easily said, we weren't aborted for a reason.
Did you hear Ana Navarro list some of her family members last night as a reason for abortion?
That's not a fair representation of what she said:
"I have a family with a lot of special needs kids," Navarro said. "I have a brother who's 57 and has the mental and motor skills of a one-year-old. And I know what that means financially, emotionally, physically for a family. And I know not all families can do it."
"And I have a step-granddaughter who was born with Down syndrome. And you know what? It is very difficult in Florida to get services. It is not as easy as it sounds on paper. And I've got another- another step-grandson who is very autistic, who has autism," Navarro told Stewart.
She continued, "There are mothers and there are people who are in that society or in that community will tell you that they've considered suicide because that's how difficult it is to get help, because that's how lonely they feel, because they can't get other jobs because they have financial issues, because the care that they're able to give their other children suffers."
"And so why can I be Catholic and still think this is a wrong decision? Because I'm American," Navarro shot back at Stewart. "I'm Catholic inside the church. I'm Catholic when it comes to me. But there's a lot of Americans who are not Catholic and are not Christian and are not Baptist. And you have no damn right to tell them what they should do with their bodies. Nobody does," Navarro added.
SE Cupp an abortion supporter, offered a touching response
Yup, as I said, she listed family members whom she thought would be better off, for all concerned, if they had been aborted.
At first I thought I was listening to Josef Mengele.
BINGO!
She listed family members and then went on to say that there is little support for special needs children and she is right. My own sister has two special needs children that are basically bankrupting her family. She loves them both, but you can't pretend that this doesn't happen.
And my uncle had a date with Josef Mengele. You have no idea of what that man did to the living. No human being should. He was a monster, and what she said was nowhere near to what he did.
And she said it as if they were a burden on society. Didn't she say the parents had considered suicide?
My own sister has two special needs children that are basically bankrupting her family. She loves them both, but you can't pretend that this doesn't happen.
I understand. I can't even conceive of what that would be like and if some woman wanted to abort such a pregnancy, I would not object.
And my uncle had a date with Josef Mengele. You have no idea of what that man did to the living. No human being should. He was a monster,
I presume & hope your uncle somehow survived? We can all agree on that.
and what she said was nowhere near to what he did.
To what he did? You are right - obviously no comparison on that, but to the idea of giving birth to deformed/special needs children - Navarro seems to be of the same mindset.
That is a total misrepresentation of what she said:
"And I have a step-granddaughter who was born with Down syndrome. And you know what? It is very difficult in Florida to get services....... "There are mothers and there are people who are in that society or in that community will tell you that they've considered suicide because that's how difficult it is to get help, because that's how lonely they feel, because they can't get other jobs because they have financial issues, because the care that they're able to give their other children suffers."
So no she didn't say that they were a burden to society.
I guess we interpreted it differently.
Dayum .... she gets more wackadoodle as time goes on
"They all promised. But in the end, Reagan didn’t do it. The Bushes didn’t do it. It was Donald J. Trump who did it by putting three Constitutionalists on the Court. Thank you, President Trump".....Laura Ingraham
Well, Harry Reid deserves credit to. Without his nuking the filibuster, the three aren't on the Court.
Maybe the only good he ever did, although it was with evil intent.
he was looking at short term gains without considering long term effect , it happens all the time in a society that demands instant gratification .
Which is why it's insane to me that some dems like AOC want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to codify abortion. As it is, it would take 60 plus Senators to federally limit abortion access. Some Democrats want to make it 50.
You'd think with the Reid example staring them in the face they'd be smart enough to have figured that out. Nope. It's still all about now now now.
Typical, everything is the fault of the left.
We live in an age of minority rule. It doesn't seem inconceivable that this could lead to violence of a political nature. Three of the six Supreme Court justices who overturned abortion rights yesterday were appointed by a criminal president who was in office even though he decisively lost the popular vote in 2016. This is not a recipe for peace and stability. The 50 Republican senators in congress represent only 43% of the American population. It's been over 25 years since the Republicans in the Senate represented a majority of the American people. These types of disturbing facts are not sustainable. 2/3 of Americans believe Roe should have been kept in place. 75% of people have lost faith in the Supreme Court. remember we have had a conservative majority Court for a long time, more than enough time for the massive dissatisfaction with the court to be inspired by objection to the unfair conservative rulings. Conservative seem to think that they're winning due to majority support but there's no evidence of that, which means right-wing advances across the political spectrum are built on sand.
If all of this true and democratic positions are so popular, why can't you actually accomplish anything democratically? Why do you have to rely on unelected justices to enact your policies by dictat?
Your argument is "we are so popular and everyone loves our ideas but we just can't win elections"
"Winning elections " doesn't have the definitive meaning it once did
Considering that Trump lost the popular vote why didn't he appoint moderates to the Supreme Court? The fact that this criminal ,and that's what he is ,was able to appoint one third of the Supreme Court of today is why the court has lost legitimacy
Nah, we are really living in an age of whiny little bitches.
An age of easily offended, delicate sensibilities. An age where if you don’t your way you piss, moan, protest, loot and riot even. An age where only liberties you agree with are applicable and liberties you don’t agree with are unpatriotic or stupid.
Yep, an age of whiny little bitches.
When you consider the radical right wing effect on the legislative and judicial branches it is fair to say we live in a time of radical minority rule
Yep, fortunately the whiny little progressive bitches are a minority. No doubt about it.
Well there is an election in nov john , and its being said those radicals that rule may not be ruling for the next 2 years anyway ....
from my lips to aqua buddhas ears ....