Our Views: Cool answer to bad idea

Even if it is not one of the best-known battles in American history, that of Fredericksburg in Maryland that occurred 150 years ago last December is famous for its one-sided slaughter of Union troops.

Confederate losses were less than half of those incurred by the attackers. Perhaps best-known about the battle, other than to history buffs, is the comment by Gen. Robert E. Lee as he watched the display of banners and bands marching to ultimate slaughter: “It is well that war is so terrible, or we would grow too fond of it.”

Just this month in 1863, given the communications of the time, thousands of families across the nation would be hearing the bad news of Fredericksburg, personal news of tragedy to their own.

And the war was not yet half over. This week, 150 years ago, more casualties would be added at the battle of Fort Hindman on the Mississippi River, part of the Vicksburg-Port Hudson campaign that would cost lives up and down the river for the rest of the year.

With all these anniversaries, it is amazing that the people who signed “secession” petitions to the White House — the first one online was said to be from a Louisiana man — forget the gory cost of the last big secession craze.

It did not turn out very well for the South, nor in the costs of the war for many thousands of Union families, too.

So let’s give the White House some kudos for a polite official reply to these idiotic notions advanced behind the anonymity of the Internet.

“Free and open debate is what makes this country work, and many people around the world risk their lives every day for the liberties we often take for granted. But as much as we value a healthy debate, we don’t let that debate tear us apart,” wrote Jon Carson, the head of the Office of Public Engagement.

As he penned that reply, perhaps he was thinking something more colorful, along the lines of “Make my day.” Or, “Try us, again.”

As Gov. Bobby Jindal noted when these petitions were first filed, this is a silly idea. But ideas have consequences and in this sesquicentennial of the Civil War, let us remember that as Lincoln said, the Lord sent us a terrible war to teach the evils of disunion.

Comments

1) Comment by prbeav - 03/02/2013

Here's Lincoln adding thought in a letter about a conversation: "I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling this tale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years struggle the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man devised, or expected. God alone can claim it." See his letter to Albert G. Hodges, April 4, 1864, for more speculation about God's will.>>>>The fact is, America's payment for the slavery England left here is no where near over.>>>>The time for trying to use the influence of God for governance of the people has long since passed, but how can the people become We the People, as defined in the US Constitution.>>>>For Lincoln buffs, what if, in 1857, instead of using the Declaration of Independence (1776) to trump the US Constitution (1788 ratification), Lincoln had used his extreme political skills to champion the 13th Amendment? Perhaps he would not have become president, but would that have been bad?

2) Comment by prbeav - 03/02/2013

Notice that promotion to "we, the people," does not reach "We the People." In other words, democracy can't touch a republic, or the rule of law.>>>>Further, the influence of God usually does not equate to justice.

3) Comment by prbeav - 03/02/2013

I join the lovemykids and attilla debate. Obama promoted his voters with the moniker “we, the people” then sought “together” to oppress half the people through proclamations that bring to mind King George III.>>>>The preamble defines We the People. Our literal paraphrase is: We the People who would fulfill seven stated goals maintain the law that governs the United States. The Articles of the Constitution plus 27 amendments specify “the people” 8 times. People who break the law may suffer, perhaps forfeit their life. Half the people can be in jeopardy, as in the Civil War. We the People, by deliberately improving the Constitution, govern the people.>>>> Federalist 84, July 16, 1788, published by authors of the Constitution, asserts that a proposed Bill of Rights is neither needed nor helpful because the literal preamble is sufficient.>>>> The preamble (1787) would fulfill the claim in the Declaration of Independence (1776): “to secure [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Together with the rest of the Constitution, the preamble clarifies that people, while “created equal,” must either control themselves or be controlled. >>>>Some found the preamble objectionable: Patrick Henry proposed to revise “We the People” to “We the States.” >>>>Notwithstanding the meanings in 1787, the seven goals address integrity, justice, harmony, life, responsibility, liberty, and continuity. Mutually fulfilling those seven goals would allow each individual to live and let live according to personal opinion.>>>>The Constitution’s gift, governance by the accomplishment of the preamble’s goals, has never been accepted by the people.>>>>We could change that historical fact.

4) Comment by Attila - 03/02/2013

Correction lovemykids; some of the people elected Obamaha. over 59 million of us voted for the other guy.

5) Comment by Cousin Dave - 03/02/2013

I suppose it could have been worse. Instead of getting Fredericksburg, Va. mixed up with Frederick, Md., they could have got it mixed up with Frederick's of Hollywood.

6) Comment by lovemykids - 03/02/2013

We the People elected Barak Obama to be President of the United States. We the People support our President.

7) Comment by Whatnow - 02/02/2013

“Free and open debate is what makes this country work." Really? Like the free and open debate with Obamacare and Gun Control? When the government who was chosen by the people no longer represents the people, you have tyranny and signing that petition was just a start of the restlessness of the people. Advocate, your efforts to pointing out your liberal agenda is well known, but you need to get your facts straight. The signatures on the “secession” petitions to the White House was to get attention and only symbolic. But, if the government keeps acting against the will of the "People" it could turn into something worse. A lot of politicians who think their positions are secure could find themselves voted out of office for failing to represent the "People" who put them there. Inaction is just as bad and can lead to their unemployment.

8) Comment by localgal - 02/02/2013

It's really comical to watch the Advocate's editorial staff butcher American History. Maybe we should give them a pop test on the Civil War. Most Southerners are acutely aware of all of the battles which were fought almost entirely on their soils. Many have ancestors who fought in those places. The secession petitions are mostly symbolic, but the policy hacks in Washington need to pay more attention to those rumblings. What they are saying is to let the states do what they need to for their citizens. Now that Obamacare is causing more than a few I-told-you-sos, there will probably be a bloodbath in the 2014 elections. That particular form of federal overreach is going to cause a secession of sorts---a bunch of Democratic congressmen and senators are going to lose their jobs. The worst of the regs will hit right about election time in 2014. Secession will seem tame compared to the political massacre that is heading our way.

9) Comment by agagent - 02/02/2013

The constitution restricts the federal government to specific and enumerate duties and responsibilities. All other functions of government reside in the states. The federal government has been ignoring the constitution, and it is proper that the states call out the federal government on the usurping of power of the states. Even if the secession movement is symbolic, the media should be informed enough to address the legitimate complaints of states and citizens being subjected to the soft tyranny of the liberal policies from the federal government.

10) Comment by agagent - 02/02/2013

Silly and uninformed editorial writer: the battle of Fredericksburg was in Virginia. Another lesson: Lee was offered the command of the Union army but turned it down to avoid fighting against his home state of Virginia.

11) Comment by [e-mail] - 02/02/2013

Nonsensical, at best; that such a comment should be linked to history is just more tactics that shouldn't be.

12) Comment by tradewinns - 02/02/2013

communities come together and make countries. it doesn't always work out, as we are currently seeing in the middle east and the balkans prior to that. nothing is forever, nothing.

13) Comment by Terd Handler - 02/02/2013

A terrible editorial. Hopefully, when Mr. Georges buys the Advocate, his first act will be to fire the editorial writers.