"AS A NATION OF FREEMEN, WE MUST LIVE THROUGH ALL TIME, OR DIE BY SUICIDE"
On January 27, 1838, 28-year old Abraham Linoln delivered his first important political speech. Called the :Lydeum Speech” because it was delivered to a meeting of the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. Hi future law partner William Herndon later staid that “The speech was brought out by the burning in St. Louis a few weeks before, by a mob, of a negro. Lincoln took this incident as a sort of text for his remarks ... The address was published in the Sangamon Journal and created for the young orator a reputation which soon extended beyond the limits of the locality in which he lived."
For those who would like to read the entire speech, go here:
Lincoln made many solid points in the speech, but in the context of our current events, this point is crucial because we are seeing it acted out in real time now:
“... We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them--they are a legacy bequeathed us, by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. Their's was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves, us, of this goodly land; and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys, a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only, to transmit these, the former, unprofaned by the foot of an invader; the latter, undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation, to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform.
“How then shall we perform it?--At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
“The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
“While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.”
TPM’s David Kurtz wrote the following in today’s “Morning Memo.” I was struck by how much it suggests we are now in that crisis of which Lincoln spoke 184 tears ago:
“For long moments during yesterday’s Supreme Court oral argument on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, the clock stopped and the outside world ceased to be and all I was left with was the blood rushing in my ears and a sinking feeling in my stomach.
“When Justice Samuel Alito, the most villainous political figure in my lifetime, asserted without any irony that prosecuting a president for refusing to relinquish power after losing an election might encourage future presidents to hold on even more firmly to their office, any remaining optimism I could muster about American democracy and its institutional ability to defend itself against tyranny drained away.
“I don’t say that lightly or for effect, and I don’t want to make my personal feelings the point here. But when I woke up this morning and saw the news coverage writ large, it didn’t reflect what happened yesterday. We slid over the edge of a cliff, and we won’t stop now until we hit bottom.
“For the second time this year, the Supreme Court encountered a Jan. 6 case and barely talked about Jan. 6, which would be amazing under any circumstance but is astounding considering the court’s own proximity to the riot. The auto-coup attempt happened right across the street from the Supreme Court building. As TPM first reported and was later confirmed by an IG report, the planners of the Jan. 6 Ellipse rally had also planned a second culminating rally for that afternoon on the steps of the Supreme Court itself. The only reason it didn’t happen was that the growing riot at the Capitol blocked access to the Supreme Court. As long as the guillotine falls on another’s neck, I suppose?
“As I’ve said here many times, the legal system can’t seem to appreciate the existential threat to itself that Trump and the MAGA movement represent. The hypotheticals batted around yesterday only confirmed that. Whether it was bribery or political assassinations or even another coup, Trump argued that he would be immune from criminal prosecution unless and until he was impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.
“But those and other hypotheticals presupposed for no obvious reason that there would still be a Congress around to impeach him and a court system to try him. Why would he tolerate an insolent Congress and a meddlesome Supreme Court in the first place? And if he had been so short-sighted as to leave the other two branches intact, why would a lawless president immune from criminal prosecution for official acts leave the White House after an impeachment conviction? Who’s gonna make him leave? Who’s gonna stop him? Certainly not this Supreme Court, we learned yesterday.
“While the ultimate ruling in this case may soften some of the worst of what the justices said yesterday, even a “compromise” decision that allows the Jan. 6 trial of Trump to go forward is likely to lead to considerable delay – setting up the preposterous scenario in which the president who engaged in sedition against the United States gets to run for the office again before he is ever prosecuted for his first coup.
“The conservative justices had a opportunity to rally to the defense of democracy, to gird the system against further attack, to righteously defend the rule of law, and to protect its own prerogatives and powers against a wannabe tyrant who is counting on them to be his supplicants. They could have drawn a sharp line. They could have summoned indignation and outrage. They could have overlooked their partisan priors in favor of principle – or more cravenly in favor of self-preservation. With the possible and limited exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, they did none of that.
“They failed in the worst possible way at the most crucial time.”
Yesterday, I posted the following comment at several Substacks:
“If what happened today is allowed to stand, it will be very easy for historians such as I to date the Fall of the American Republic with accuracy: April 25, 2024.”
We have to face the fact that we now have a rogue court, the majority of which is composed of traitors to the constitution who see their job as doing their best to destroy democracy because they and the political movement they are part of have convinced themselves that their side can never win in a fair competition. They’re right, because fascism never wins a fair fight, it only wins when it can overthrow the democratic system and impose itself on the body politic. We must stop allowing this movement to hijack the ancient and honorable word “Conservative,” and call them what they are: “Fascist.” Fascism may spring from conservatism, but it is the furthest thing from that political philosophy.
Courts are not going to save us. Politicians are not going to save us by deciding on their own to do the right thing. We are the defenders of the Constitution on which this democratic constitutional republic is founded. We are the sole authors of our survival as the country we know and love. That was Lincoln’s truth back then and it still is today. Politicians will “save” us when they know that the reason they are in office is that we put them there as our representatives, with one goal: destroy the enemy and preserve the Constitution.
And the only way that will happen is for all of us to become the “engaged citizens” the Founders saw as the foundation stone of the government they were creating.
Vote in November like your life depended on it, because the life you have had to date does depend for its continued existence on your vote and your action. And do whatever you can to get others to vote like this too.
“In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, during oral argument in Trump v. United States
That’s Another Fine Mess depends on the paid subscribers who provide the support to continue this work. It’s only $7/month or $70/year.
Comments are for paid subscribers.
A couple of things.
One is that if some left-wing morons hadn't voted for Ralph Nader in New Hampshire, Al Gore would have had 270 electoral votes and Florida wouldn't have mattered. If Gore is president, do we get Alito? Of course not.
Another is that Alito was, of course, a Bush appointee. Often justices seem much more liberal or conservative than when they came on the court or than the president who appointed them, but it's truer that the issues themselves change. FDR wanted justices who would uphold the New Deal. He got them. But when it came time to deal with threats to civil liberties, they divided.
But Alito is not different from the administrations from which he emerged. As a Reaganite, he was tied to the same ideology. Likewise, lest we forget, beyond Iraq and screwing up 9/11, the Bush administration believed in "signing statements" and a "unitary executive." Alito is just another republican.
Finally, I always use lower-case because Lincoln was a Republican. There's a difference. It would be more accurate to call today's republicans Copperheads or Confederates.
Agreed. Tom. Thanks for the excerpts from Lincoln, I hadn't read those before.
Along with the fact that The Supreme Court Justices are not immune, is another fact; nowhere in Article 3 does it say, or even suggest, that Supreme Court Justices must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. That's just the way we've always done it, does not imply we must continue. I just re-read Article 3 to make sure I'm correct, I am. Frankly, I think it's a shitty way to select what should be the most important legal experts in the land. Better we find legal experts who know the Constitution at least as well as I do. Have had a solid and respected career in the law. Are willing to work for $278,000 (or whatever the salary is at the time) per year plus benefits and expenses. We also need a universal code of ethics that applies to all public servants - and yes, in a democratic, representative, republic like ours, even the president is a public servant (something that slipped the attention of Nixon, Reagan, and Trump).