Slavery & its Aftermath: Revisiting Lyceum

Review by Bill Doughty––

The shadow of Lincoln looms over some politicians who restrict certain books and the teaching of slavery. Learning about American history, both shiny and tarnished aspects, is key to a strong republic and successful self-government, as suggested in Diana Schaub’s “His Greatest Speeches: How Lincoln Moved the Nation” (St. Martin’s Press, 2021).

Schaub examines three speeches and related dates as “punctuation points”: Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, with themes tied to 1619 and the beginning of the sin of slavery of African Americans in North America; The Gettysburg Address, echoing 1776 and the Declaration of Independence; and young Lincoln's Lyceum speech, bringing forth ideals outlined in the Constitution of 1787: “American purpose and destiny” and respect for law and order.

Lincoln wanted to place slavery “in the course of ultimate extinction.” He wanted progressive perpetuation of the nation in the face of disintegration. He called for a continued pursuit of “a more perfect union.”

This book is essential to understanding the reasons for (1) the insurrection of January 6, 2021, (2) the rise of white nationalism and violent extremism, (3) threats of a potential  autocracy, and (4) the need to defend the Constitution and protect the rule of law, voting rights and personal freedoms.

In his Lyceum address, Lincoln said, “The lawless in spirit are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread punishment, they thus become absolutely restrained. Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation.”

He called such lawlessness “Mobocratic spirit,” in which anger makes restraint more difficult. Lincoln saw “increasing disregard for the law” and risk of despotic autocracy that “fits the very definition of arbitrary rule: unlimited, unrestrained, capricious,” Schaub writes. “By contrast, these constitutionally articulated parts divide and check power through their complex relation to one another.”

Master Chief Marcious Kelley and another Sailor assigned to the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) visit the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial in Washington D.C., January 27, 2017. USS Lincoln organized a tour for 23 Sailors of the Lincoln Memorial, the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial and the African-American History Museum. (Matthew Herbst)

Schaub compares Martin Luther King Jr.’s nonviolence with the concept of peaceableness: “Peaceableness is a demanding standard –– more demanding than non-violence since it applies to the attitude of those gathered, not just their actions.” Schaub also analyzes Lincoln's philosophy with the thinking of Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X, more prone to condoning violence than preaching peaceableness.

The Lyceum speech ties back to another great American, President George Washington, and specifically Washington’s Farewell Address and warnings, not only of threats from other nations, but also of divisions from within. Schaub writes:

“Washington warns against sectionalism that would ‘tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection’; Lincoln worries about ‘the alienation of their affections from the Government’ –– a generalized, rather than sectional, alienation felt by ‘the American People.’ Washington announces in the strongest terms that compliance with the law and the Constitution is ‘sacredly obligatory upon all’; the lesson in democratic theory is reiterated by Lincoln and supplemented with his call for a ‘political religion’ or ‘reverence’ for the Constitution and laws. Washington inveighs against the dangerous effects of ‘the strongest passions’ and the ‘cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men’ who would ‘usurp for themselves the reins of Government’; Lincoln, too, disparages passion –– calls it ‘our enemy’ –– and puts us on guard against the unbounded ambition of the republic-destroyers.”

The Founders, including Washington and especially Hamilton and Madison, were “aware of the power latent in the love of fame” so they set up a complex system of checks and balances to protect against the rise of a narcissistic ego-driven autocrat. The checks include the legislative, judicial, and executive branches as well as the balance of national/federal and state power.

Navy Recruiter PO Jasmine Allen (CPO Todd Macdonald)

“According to Lincoln,” Schaub writes, “the only restraint upon the incipient tyrant must come from the concerted resistance of … the people.”

In order to progress from slavery, insurrection, racism and discrimination toward that "more perfect union," one needs faith in reason and critical thinking, not in passion and pure emotion.

Lincoln and Washington used the word “passion” in its original meaning, that of strong feelings of a negative nature. Think: January 6th rioters and insurrectionists.

Lincoln said, perhaps presciently, “Passion has helped us [in the Revolutionary War], but it can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy.”

“Passion,” to Lincoln, meant more hate, revenge, and fear –– more divisiveness. He even eschewed compassion, choosing instead to approach issues with logic.

According to Schaub, “Lincoln sought always to lift the slavery debate to the level of principle and unimpassioned reason, avoiding the dangerous ground of compassion, anger, and blame.”

In Lincoln’s case, the strong passions of the mob included vigilantism and lynchings that were happening especially in the South in the aftermath of the Civil War. His description of black bodies hanging from trees like so much Spanish moss reminds people of the Billie Holiday song “Strange Fruit,” Schaub observes.

While the mob’s desire was to crack down on what they saw as crimes, they in fact emboldened the criminals. “When law is disregarded for the sake of justice, that provides license for those who would disregard law for purposes of their own.”

Lincoln believed in obeying even “bad laws” until they could be changed. That is where his and MLK’s philosophy splits. In “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King calls for disobeying unconscionable laws but, importantly, disobeying them openly and lovingly.

Yet, Schaub presents an example of Lincoln disobeying a law when the standard for doing so was “too intolerable.” It occurred during the war when the widow of a white officer who died while commanding African American troops pleaded with President Lincoln. She asked for him to help “widows” of fallen black service members who hadn’t been able to marry before going off to war and so were ineligible for death benefits for themselves and their children. Lincoln stepped in “as if there had been a legal marriage” and arranged for help to the widows and orphans.

Schaub quotes Martin Luther King Jr. again later in “His Greatest Speeches”: “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Schaub writes, “Aware of the inescapable reciprocity of rights –– Lincoln always insisted that it was imperative to restore the belief in universal equality for the sake of white citizens, as well as for the sake of the enslaved people.”

Schaub notes that Lincoln and King are “often viewed as our nation’s greatest moral lights.” The two great men would probably agree on Lincoln’s recommendations for preventing mobocracy and resulting autocracy.

Lincoln’s solutions, as revealed by Schaub:

— Have “reverence for the laws,” recognizing usurpation (wrongfully seizing power) is suicide. 

— Win public sentiment: with it, everything; without it, nothing. 

— Harness personal ambition rather than try to suppress it; steer ambition to the duties of office and the public good. 

— Recognize two fundamental blessings in the United States: Nature and Government: “Both legacies must be transmitted to the next generation.” 

— Be law-abiding, not out of fear but out of reverence. 

— Engage and prove the unproven proposition of the Founders, namely “the capability of a people to govern themselves.” Vote. 

— Become an educated citizenry; more education, more books! [It was remarkable and memorable when former CNO Adm. Jon Greenert unveiled his take on the Navy’s Reading Program in 2012 by standing in front of hundreds of books –– all related to Abraham Lincoln.]

“In his first appearance on the political stage, announcing his candidacy for office in 1832, Lincoln endorsed public education so that citizens might, through the reading of history, ‘duly appreciate the values of our free institutions.’ He makes a similar linkage here, telling us that the system of political institutions serves ‘the ends of civil and religious liberty’ and that the whole elaborate arrangement requires ‘general intelligence’ on the part of the people.”

Lincoln refers to a tangible “fabric of freedom.”

A command ball cap from the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Gettysburg (CG 64) rests upon on a stone wall on the battlefields of Gettysburg, Pa. The ship’s crew visited and paid honor to the ship’s longstanding ties to its namesake town, July 2, 2015. (MC3 Rachel E. Rakoff)

In “His Greatest Speeches,” Schaub dissects not only the Lyceum speech, but also the most famous American speech, The Gettysburg Address, as well as The Second Inaugural Address, where Lincoln says –– relevant to today’s controversies about what is taught in schools –– achievement of “a just and lasting peace among ourselves” requires reconciliation through what Schaub calls truth-telling and an inquiry into the cause and purpose of the war.”

In other words, we must teach the truth about slavery, the original sin, and take truth out from the shadows.

‘Second’ Thoughts: ‘Race and Guns’

Review by Bill Doughty––

“This is not a pro-gun or anti-gun book,” Carol Anderson writes.

It’s a book about disparate treatment, discrimination, and outright racism when it comes to the application of –– and even the creation of –– the Second Amendment: “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America” (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021).

How and why is there a “right to bear arms” in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights? What is a “well-regulated militia”? How has the United States military been part of or affected by the Second Amendment and its application? How is disparity as obvious as black and white?

Anderson explores the origins of the Second Amendment and the Constitution itself. Madison worked tirelessly to build the document that would replace the rickety Articles of Confederation and set forth the ethos and ideals of the new nation based on equality and freedom.

“But those intentions of creating a strong, viable republic committed to its lofty ideas crashed headlong into the unspoken reality of America: ‘Slavery was the largely unmentioned monster in the basement of the new nation.’ It was so fearsome that its name, like a dreaded demon, was never to be mentioned in the Constitution lest it erupt out from its darkened and dank lair and tear the fragile nation apart. There was something else besides fear, though, that required slavery to remain like a terrifying wrath haunting the nation’s founding document: guilt. John Dickinson, a delegate from Pennsylvania who drafted the original Articles of Confederation, noted that the very omission of ‘the WORD slavery…[from the Constitution was to] conceal a principle of which we are ashamed.’”

As many Northern states were eliminating slavery from within their borders, southern states, especially South Carolina, was doubling down on the institution, threatening no support for the Constitution if the Atlantic slave trade were curtailed by legislation. Politicians from the Deep South showed extreme hypocrisy: on one hand forbidding enslaved people from citizenship, and on the other hand demanding they be counted in a census so the South would have more representation in Congress (leading to the cursed Three-Fifths Compromise by the Supreme Court).

Anderson shows how the Second Amendment was also a compromise under the shadow of States’ Rights: the resistance to pay for a standing army and the fear, not just of government tyranny, but also primarily of slave revolts.

An armed “well-regulated militia” was a whites-only concept meant to protect landowners from their chattel slaves who might seek freedom by any means necessary.

Wealthy landowners two hundred years ago had every right to be afraid, considering violent slave rebellions in Haiti, Richmond, and New Orleans. Anderson describes the horrors associated with the revolts and what happened to captured insurgents: torture, mutilation, heads on poles.

In the South in the 1800s homes of black people were routinely searched. Guns and books along with other educational material were confiscated. Anderson writes, “Gun control laws, to be clear, were everywhere in antebellum America. Indeed, ‘the South was the gun control center of the United States…’”

The “bravado” of a well-regulated militia was revealed in the War of 1812 against Great Britain. The British captured and burned the White House and U.S. Capitol, including the Library of Congress, in 1814. The young nation, under attack, in fact needed a standing army and navy.

As the British did in the Revolutionary War, they promised freedom to enslaved people in the War of 1812. Nevertheless, the American military recruited African Americans who fought and helped win the war. Of the three thousand soldiers and sailors who fought in the Battle of New Orleans, for example, six hundred were black.

Immediately after the war, General Andrew Jackson ordered blacks to be “summarily dismissed.” People of color were again banned from owning guns or ammunition. If found with a firearm, they were whipped. Endemic racism prevailed and was exacerbated by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which “was supposed to be part of a sectional compromise that would keep the United States actually united. Instead, it was a law that was so hated that the seams in the American fabric began to visibly tear apart.”

The Civil War, which should have been a turning point for African Americans and their freedoms –– including the right to bear arms –– was largely a met with “nearly impenetrable barriers” of racism: Jim Crow laws, disparate treatment, and bigotry. “Andrew Johnson, who ascended the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination, was instrumental in sabotaging efforts to craft a political and legal environment in which the formerly enslaved and free blacks could live fully.” Johnson pardoned many Confederacy leaders and supported States’ Rights to restrict citizenship, gun ownership, and other rights of African Americans.

Using carefully sourced documentation, Anderson presents the history of lynchings, massacres, and other violences committed against blacks, including black soldiers in the early 1900s. “The United States was a nation locked into a prison of anti-blackness absolutely unsafe for democracy and also for African Americans.

Many Americans who lived through the Civil War were still alive when the United States entered World War I. As the United States prepared to fight in Europe, the military had trouble filling its ranks so opened recruitment to black American men via the 1917 Selective Service Act, still ensuring units were segregated but led only by white officers. Even then, some politicians from former Confederate states opposed the initiative, which allowed blacks to carry, train, and use weapons.

Imagine the tension in Houston, Texas (the last state to acknowledge in 1865 the emancipation of enslaved people) when black soldiers were ordered to be stationed there in 1917 during WWI. Troops of the Army’s Third Battalion, Twenty-Fourth Infantry Regiment –– who had fought for the United States in Cuba, the Philippines, and Mexico –– were assigned to guard duty at a Houston army base. 

The soldiers faced intense racism and discrimination by the local population, including the police, who referred to them in derogatory terms and dehumanizing disrespect. Clashes were frequent with law enforcement and white contract workers, who refused to show I.D.s to or “obey” black soldiers.

After civilian police officers beat two soldiers, shooting at one, dozens of members of the Twenty-Fourth armed themselves and marched to confront the police. The resulting confrontation resulted in the deaths of four soldiers and more than a dozen whites, including some police.

“Military justice was swift,” Anderson writes. “Nineteen of the soldiers were executed immediately after the trial and fifty-four were sentenced to prison.”

Anderson’s book is rich in history of the Second Amendment –– especially related to the Constitutional Convention, events in the divisive 19th century, and milestones in the turbulent early 20th century.

“The Second” loses steam, though, by the time the chronology reaches the Second World War and Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, with a comparative dearth of discussion about that era. Nevertheless, Anderson finishes strong in bringing the issue to the 21st century: no-knock warrants, stand-your-ground laws, open-carry and concealed weapon legislation –– and how they impact African Americans today.

Readers are left to contemplate: How does freedom to own, carry, and use firearms balance with the freedom from being shot? Who is responsible for a tyranny of gun violence in the United States?

This may not be “a pro-gun or anti-gun book,” but it is a fascinating, disturbing, and enlightening examination of the origins of the Second Amendment and its surprising relevance to the military and American wars as well as the meaning of true freedom.

[Anderson capitalizes “Black” but lower-cases “white” when writing about people. While I understand the rationale for that style choice, I but don’t agree with the premise and prefer lower-case for both, in the spirit of Adam Serwer and Isabel Wilkerson.]

McVeigh/Constitution/Jan. 6 –– Part 3

Review by Bill Doughty––

Why would anyone want to read about Army veteran-turned violent anarchist Timothy McVeigh, bomber of the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building in 1995? The premeditated attack killed 168 people (including 19 children). McVeigh believed that his act of violence would start a revolution and bring down the federal government.

He believed he was on the right side of the Constitution, and he tried to proclaim, through his monstrous act, another declaration of independence.

What McVeigh did in 1995 resonates in some of the issues of today: His stances on no gun control, states’ rights over the federal government, and deeply held white separatist and misogynist beliefs. McVeigh said he wanted to make America “great” again: “I want a country that operates like it did 150 years ago—no income taxes, no property taxes, no oppressive police, free land in the West.”

Toobin notes, however, “He didn’t mention slavery.” Or women not having the right to vote.

Toobin’s “Homegrown: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism” (Simon & Schuster, 2023) ties McVeigh’s beliefs to some of the followers of former President Donald Trump who beat police, threatened politicians, and illegally entered and vandalized the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to interrupt Congress and the electoral process. As we’ve noted in previous posts, many of the insurrectionists are military veterans.

McVeigh washed out of Green Beret training and left the Army before fulfilling his contract, so had to pay back $3,000 to the government. He believed in a host of conspiracies and held numerous grievances, much like the ultra-MAGA followers who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

Among the characters in the first paragraph of the prologue to “Homegrown” is Alex Jones, the host of Info Wars and conspiracy theorist who posited that the Sandy Hook massacre of children was a hoax. Jones stoked the flames of grievance on the eve of the insurrection, saying, “We declare 1776 against the New World Order. We need to understand we’re under attack, and we need to understand this is 21st century warfare and get on a war-footing.”

Alex Jones wasn’t the only one to encourage violence. Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani called for “trial by combat” on January 6. Trump himself told the crowd that morning, “And we’re going to the Capitol. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Trump, who has been impeached twice and indicted twice for separate alleged crimes, might be indicted again, perhaps in more than one jurisdiction, for his role in subverting the Constitution and interfering in the 2020 election.

Murrah Building, Oklahoma City (FBI)

A quarter of a century earlier, in 1994, Timothy McVeigh wrote a letter to the American Legion and expressed his anger: “We members of the citizen’s militias do not bear our arms to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow those who PERVERT the Constitution. If and when they once again draw first blood, Citizen’s militias will hopefully ensure that violations of the Constitution by these power-hungry stormtroopers of the federal government will not succeed again.”

A year later, McVeigh carried out his bombing with direct assistance from fellow Army veteran Terry Nichols, who was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Another Army pal, Michael Fortier, knew about the plan in advance and even went with McVeigh to Oklahoma City to case the Murrah building.

Fortier and his wife, Lori, who had a role in assisting the bomber, eventually testified for the prosecution and were provided with new identities and relocated under the federal witness protection program.

Nichols and Fortier, like McVeigh, believed they were on the right side of the Constitution. "They regarded the right to 'bear arms' as a license for citizens to fight back against the government."

Toobin recounts a chilling interview with Fortier.

When interviewed by the FBI’s Danny Coulson, special agent in charge, Fortier tried to hide behind the Constitution:

“‘We’re at war,’ Fortier told Coulson. ‘You don’t understand.’

Coulson was having none of it. ‘No we’re not,’ he said. ‘If we were at war, I would have killed McVeigh, and I would have killed you, because I have the capability. You may be at war with your country, but your country is not at war with you.’

‘Well,’ Fortier answered. ‘It’s about the Constitution.’

‘Oh, you’re right,’ the  agent responded. ‘It is about the Constitution, and we’re going to investigate you under the Constitution, and the Attorney General has said this is a death penalty case. And I can put every agent in the FBI on you, and we’re going to indict you under the Constitution.’

Coulson leaned in to the tiny table where they were sitting, their knees nearly touching. ‘And then we’re going to convict you under the Constitution, and we’ll handle your appeal under the Constitution,’ Coulson went on, his voice lowering to nearly a whisper. ‘And one day we’re going to stick a needle in you, and kill you under the Constitution.’

Fortier’s eyes widened, and he didn’t have much to say in response.”

The initial Justice Department lead supervisor investigating the bombing was then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was called away to investigate the Unabomber’s terrorism campaign. Toobin notes Garland’s role then and now as Attorney General after Garland appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate Trump’s mishandling of classified information as well as his role instigating the J6 insurrection.

Toobin

Toobin writes how Trump, after his presidency, “abandoned any pretense of detachment from right-wing extremist groups. He openly embraced QAnon, a quasi-mystical political cult that spreads the false theory that the Democratic Party runs pedophile rings.”

Trump praised Ashlii Babbitt as a martyr and condemned the federal officer who shot her as a “thug” and a “murderer.” He recorded the national anthem with imprisoned J6 insurrectionists. He predicted violence if indicted for various crimes he allegedly committed. And, amazingly, “He called for the ‘termination’ of the Constitution, pledged support for the January 6 rioters [saying several times he would offer pardons if re-elected], and dined with notorious white supremacists.”

Trump expressed a demand to change the Constitution in order to keep him in power, claiming as part of a Big Lie, that the 2020 election was stolen from him: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote in a post on his social network Truth Social. The former commander in chief announced his 2024 campaign for re-election in Waco during the 30th anniversary of the seige that inspired McVeigh to bomb the Murrah Building.

Toobin concludes, “In the nearly 30 years since the Oklahoma City bombing, the country took an extraordinary journey –– from nearly universal horror at the action of a right-wing extremist to wide embrace of a former president (also possibly a future president) who reflected the bomber’s values.”

“As we have seen, too, the rioters and their allies in the January 6 insurrection dressed up their arguments with invocations of the American Revolution. They chanted ‘1776’ as their attempt to overthrow a democracy were comparable to the Founders’ effort to create one.” The yellow Gadsden flag (Don’t Tread on Me), which flew during the American Revolution, was almost as popular as QAnon flags on January 6.

In 2021, the Big Lie was the phantom conspiracy that resulted in an actual conspiracy: to create fake electors, pressure the vice president to overturn the election, and storm the Capitol in a coup attempt by Trump supporters.

“The events of January 6, 2021, saw the full flowering of McVeigh’s legacy in contemporary politics. McVeigh was obsessed with gun rights; he saw the bombing as akin to the revolutionary struggle of the Founding Fathers; and he believed that violence was justified to achieve his goals. So did the rioters on January 6.

“Among those at the Capitol, there was, to an unappreciated degree, a substantial focus on gun rights and the Second Amendment. The Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, the two most prominent extremist groups involved in the January 6 assault, embraced gun rights above all other issues, just as McVeigh did. Joe Biggs of the Proud Boys was prominently featured at National Rifle Association events, and much of the group’s merchandise features guns and slogans like 'From my cold dead hands' –– a reference to NRA leader Charlton Heston’s famous boast. The Oath Keepers are descended even more directly from the Oklahoma City conspirators, with their shared obsession with gun rights.”

Not surprisingly, The Oklahoma City bombing prompted conspiracies, especially in right-wing circles, with some saying the bombing was done by left-wing groups, Filipino insurrectionists, Islamist terrorists, or the U.S. government itself.

During President George W. Bush’s administration, the Department of Homeland Security was commissioned to assess and report on terrorism, including within the borders of the country. The report was issued in April 2009 shortly after President Barack Obama became president. Many conservatives, including right-wing media and politicians, took exception to the findings of the threat of far-right extremism on the homefront.

U.S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas blasted the Obama administration for being “awfully willing to paint law-abiding Americans, including war veterans, as ‘extremists.’” According to Toobin, “Representative Steve Buyer [of Indiana] the top Republican on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said it was ‘inconceivable’ that veterans could pose a threat.

Today, Republicans have caused a halt in stand-downs by the Department of Defense to evaluate how much anti-government violent extremists are serving in uniform. Though coming from a party purporting to back law and order, some MAGA extremists have targeted the FBI and other federal law enforcement, some even calling for disbanding the agency.

Why would anyone want to read about Army veteran-turned violent anarchist Timothy McVeigh, bomber of the Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building in 1995? Perhaps to understand extremism, learn how people can believe in such violence, and see the links to a potential constitutional crisis. And maybe as a warning about what might happen after the 2024 election if believers in the Big Lie don’t get their way –– or if they do.

The best antidote to ignorance is education and being open to new information. In the words of Jeffrey Toobin, “Extremism is defined, at least in part, by aversion to accepted wisdom.”

McVeigh's lead lawyer, Stephen Jones (right) and second-in-command Rob Nigh with Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma's El Reno prison. They wanted another picture of their client for media use besides the sinister-looking image at the perp walk. (AP Photo/Kathy Roberts, Courtesy of Simon & Schuster)