Wednesday, April 19, 1876. A suggestion.

 To the Editor of the National Republican:

Sir: Admirable as is the monument by Mr. Ball in Lincoln Park, it does not, as it seems to me, tell the whole truth, and perhaps no one monument could be made to tell the whole truth of any subject which it might be designed to illustrate. The mere act of breaking the negro’s chains was the act of Abraham Lincoln, and is beautifully expressed in this monument. But the act by which the negro was made a citizen of the United States and invested was the elective franchise was pre-eminently the act of President U. S. Grant, and this is nowhere seen in the Lincoln monument. The negro here, though rising is still on his knees and nude. What I want to see before I die is a monument representing the negro, not couchant on his knees like a four-footed animal, but erect on his feet like a man. There is room in Lincoln park for another monument, and I throw out this suggestion to the end that it may be taken up and acted upon.

Frederick Douglass.

Last edition:

Friday, April 14, 1876. Douglas speaks at the dedication of the Freeman's monument.

Labels: 1870s, 1876, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, It was because of the Civil War, Slavery, the spoken word, Washington DC

Friday, April 14, 1876. Douglas speaks at the dedication of the Freeman's monument.

Frederick Douglas delivered a speech on the occasion of the unveiling of the Freedman’s monument in memory of Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C.

He stated:

I warmly congratulate you upon the highly interesting object which has caused you to assemble in such numbers and spirit as you have to-day. This occasion is in some respects remarkable. Wise and thoughtful men of our race, who shall come after us, and study the lesson of our history in the United States; who shall survey the long and dreary spaces over which we have travelled; who shall count the links in the great chain of events by which we have reached our present position, will make a note of this occasion; they will think of it and speak of it with a sense of manly pride and complacency.

I congratulate you, also, upon the very favorable circumstances in which we meet to-day. They are high, inspiring, and uncommon. They lend grace, glory, and significance to the object for which we have met. Nowhere else in this great country, with its uncounted towns and cities, unlimited wealth, and immeasurable territory extending from sea to sea, could conditions be found more favorable to the success of this occasion than here.

We stand to-day at the national centre to perform something like a national act—an act which is to go into history; and we are here where every pulsation of the national heart can be heard, felt, and reciprocated. A thousand wires, fed with thought and winged with lightning, put us in instantaneous communication with the loyal and true men all over this country.

Few facts could better illustrate the vast and wonderful change which has taken place in our condition as a people than the fact of our assembling here for the purpose we have to-day. Harmless, beautiful, proper, and praiseworthy as this demonstration is, I cannot forget that no such demonstration would have been tolerated here twenty years ago. The spirit of slavery and barbarism, which still lingers to blight and destroy in some dark and distant parts of our country, would have made our assembling here the signal and excuse for opening upon us all the flood-gates of wrath and violence. That we are here in peace to-day is a compliment and a credit to American civilization, and a prophecy of still greater national enlightenment and progress in the future. I refer to the past not in malice, for this is no day for malice; but simply to place more distinctly in the front the gratifying and glorious change which as come both to our white fellow-citizens and ourselves, and to congratulate all upon the contrast between now and then; the new dispensation of freedom with its thousand blessings to both races, and the old dispensation of slavery with its ten thousand evils to both races—white and black. In view, then, of the past, the present, and the future, with the long and dark history of our bondage behind us, and with liberty, progress, and enlightenment before us, I again congratulate you upon this auspicious day and hour.

Friends and fellow-citizens, the story of our presence here is soon and easily told. We are here in the District of Columbia, here in the city of Washington, the most luminous point of American territory; a city recently transformed and made beautiful in its body and in its spirit; we are here in the place where the ablest and best men of the country are sent to devise the policy, enact the laws, and shape the destiny of the Republic; we are here, with the stately pillars and majestic dome of the Capitol of the nation looking down upon us; we are here, with the broad earth freshly adorned with the foliage and flowers of spring for our church, and all races, colors, and conditions of men for our congregation—in a word, we are here to express, as best we may, by appropriate forms and ceremonies, our grateful sense of the vast, high, and pre-eminent services rendered to ourselves, to our race, to our country, and to the whole world by Abraham Lincoln.

The sentiment that brings us here to-day is one of the noblest that can stir and thrill the human heart. It has crowned and made glorious the high places of all civilized nations with the grandest and most enduring works of art, designed to illustrate the characters and perpetuate the memories of great public men. It is the sentiment which from year to year adorns with fragrant and beautiful flowers the graves of our loyal, brave, and patriotic soldiers who fell in defence of the Union and liberty. It is the sentiment of gratitude and appreciation, which often, in presence of many who hear me, has filled yonder heights of Arlington with the eloquence of eulogy and the sublime enthusiasm of poetry and song; a sentiment which can never die while the Republic lives.

For the first time in the history of our people and in the history of the whole American people, we join in this high worship, and march conspicuously in the line of this time-honored custom. First things are always interesting, and this is one of our first things. It is the first time that, in this form and manner, we have sought to do honor to an American great man, however deserving and illustrious. I commend the fact to notice; let it be told in every part of the Republic; let men of all parties and opinions hear it; let those who despise us, not less than those who respect us, know that now and here, in the spirit of liberty, loyalty, and gratitude, let it be known everywhere, and by everybody who takes an interest in human progress and in the amelioration of the condition of mankind, that, in the presence and with the approval of the members of the American House of Representatives, reflecting the general sentiment of the country; that in the presence of that august body, the American Senate, representing the highest intelligence and the calmest judgment of the country; in presence of the Supreme Court and Chief-Justice of the United States, to whose decisions we all patriotically bow; in the presence and under the steady eye of the honored and trusted President of the United States, with the members of his wise and patriotic Cabinet, we, the colored people, newly emancipated and rejoicing in our blood-bought freedom, near the close of the first century in the life of this Republic, have now and here unveiled, set apart, and dedicated a monument of enduring granite and bronze, in every line, feature, and figure of which the men of this generation may read, and those of after-coming generations may read, something of the exalted character and great works of Abraham Lincoln, the first martyr President of the United States.

Fellow-citizens, in what we have said and done to-day, and in what we may say and do hereafter, we disclaim everything like arrogance and assumption. We claim for ourselves no superior devotion to the character, history, and memory of the illustrious name whose monument we have here dedicated to-day. We fully comprehend the relation of Abraham Lincoln both to ourselves and to the white people of the United States. Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continents of eternity. It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

He was pre-eminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the States where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed constitutional guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave States. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by force of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at this altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their sumits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fulness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.

Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion—merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defence of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Frèmont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the

Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.

When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rages of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of Hayti, the special object of slaveholding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave-trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slaveholders three months’ grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.

Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read to-day. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanks-giving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the President had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt which would smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress.

Fellow-citizens, there is little necessity on this occasion to speak at length and critically of this great and good man, and of his high mission in the world. That ground has been fully occupied and completely covered both here and elsewhere. The whole field of fact and fancy has been gleaned and garnered. Any man can say things that are true of Abraham Lincoln, but no man can say anything that is new of Abraham Lincoln. His personal traits and public acts are better than known to the American people than are those of any other man of his age. He was a mystery to no man who saw him and heard him. Though high in position, the humblest could approach him and feel at home in his presence. Though deep, he was transparent; though strong, he was gentle; though decided and pronounced in his convictions, he was tolerant towards those who differed from him, and patient under reproaches. Even those who only knew him through his public utterances obtained a tolerably clear idea of his character and his personality. The image of the man went out with his words, and those who read them, knew him. 

I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful co-operation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery.* The man who could say, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether,” gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.

Fellow-citizens, whatever else in this world may be partial, unjust, and uncertain, time, time! is impartial, just, and certain in its action. In the ”I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel” –Letter of Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Hodges, of Kentucky, April , 1864. realm of mind, as well as in the realm of matter, it is a great worker, and often works wonders. The honest and comprehensive statesman, clearly discerning the needs of his country, and earnestly endeavoring to do his whole duty, though covered and blistered with reproaches, may safely leave his course to the silent judgment of time. Few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than Abraham Lincoln was during his administration. He was often wounded in the house of his friends. Reproaches came thick and fast upon him from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by slaveholders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was most bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war.

But now behold the change: the judgment of the present hour is, that taking him for all in all, measuring the tremendous magnitude of the work before him, considering the necessary means to ends, and surveying the end from the beginning, infinite wisdom has seldom sent any man into the world better fitted for his mission than Abraham Lincoln. His birth, his training, and his natural endowments, both mental and physical, were strongly in his favor. Born and reared among the lowly, a stranger to wealth and luxury, compelled to grapple single-handed with the flintiest hardships of life, from tender youth to sturdy manhood, he grew strong in the manly and heroic qualities demanded by the great mission to which he was called by the votes of his countrymen. The hard condition of his early life, which would have depressed and broken down weaker men, only gave greater life, vigor, and buoyancy to the heroic spirit of Abraham Lincoln. He was ready for any kind and quality of work. What other young men dreaded in the shape of toil, he took hold of with the utmost cheerfulness.

A spade, a rake, a hoe,

A pick-axe, or a bill;

A hook to reap, a scythe to mow,

A flail, or what you will.

All day long he could split heavy rails in the woods, and half the night long he could study his English Grammar by the uncertain flare and glare of the light made by a pine-knot. He was at home on the land with his axe, with his maul, with gluts, and his wedges; and he was equally at home on water, with his oars, with his poles, with his planks, and with his boat-hooks. And whether in his flat-boat on the Mississippi river, or at the fireside of his frontier cabin, he was a man of work. A son of toil himself, he was linked in brotherly sympathy with the sons of toil in every loyal part of the Republic. This very fact gave him tremendous power with the American people, and materially contributed not only to selecting him to the Presidency, but in sustaining his administration of the Government.

Upon his inauguration as President of the United States, an office, even where assumed under the most favorable conditions, fitted to tax and strain the largest abilities, Abraham Lincoln was met by a tremendous crisis. He was called upon not merely to administer the Government, but to decide, in the face of terrible odds, the fate of the Republic.

A formidable rebellion rose in his path before him; the Union was already practically dissolved; his country was torn and rent asunder at the centre. Hostile armies were already organized against the Republic, armed with the munitions of war which the Republic had provided for its own defence. The tremendous question for him to decide was whether his country should survive the crisis and flourish, or be dismembered and perish. His predecessor in office had already decided the question in favor of national dismemberment, by denying to it the right of self-defence to the meanest insect.

Happily for the country, happily for you and for me, the judgment of James Buchanan, the patrician, was not the judgment of Abraham Lincoln, the plebeian. He brought his strong common sense, sharpened in the school of adversity, to bear upon the question.  He did not hesitate, he did not doubt, he did not falter; but at once resolved that at whatever peril, at whatever cost, the union of the States should be preserved. A patriot himself, his faith was strong and unwavering in the patriotism of his countrymen. Timid men said before Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration, that we have seen the last President of the United States. A voice in influential quarters said “Let the Union slide.” Some said that a Union maintained by the sword was worthless. Others said a rebellion of 8,000,000 cannot be suppressed; but in the midst of all this tumult and timidity, and against all this, Abraham Lincoln was clear in his duty, and had an oath in heaven. He calmly and bravely heard the voice of doubt and fear all around him; but he had an oath in heaven, and there was not power enough on the earth to make this honest boatman, back-woodsman, and broad-handed splitter of rails evade or violate that sacred oath. He had not been schooled in the ethics of slavery; his plain life had favored his love of truth. He had not been taught that treason and perjury were the proof of honor and honesty. His moral training was against his saying one thing when he meant another. The trust which Abraham Lincoln had in himself and in the people was surprising and grand, but it was also enlightened and well founded. He knew the American people better than they knew themselves, and his truth was based upon this knowledge.

Fellow-citizens, the fourteenth day of April, 1865, of which this is the eleventh anniversary, is now and will ever remain a memorable day in the annals of this Republic. It was on the evening of this day, while a fierce and sanguinary rebellion was in the last stages of its desolating power; while its armies were broken and scattered before the invincible armies of Grant and Sherman; while a great nation, torn and rent by war, was already beginning to raise to the skies loud anthems of joy at the dawn of peace, it was startled, amazed, and overwhelmed by the crowning crime of slavery—the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. It was a new crime, a pure act of malice. No purpose of the rebellion was to be served by it. It was the simple gratification of a hell-black spirit of revenge. But it has done good after all. It has filled the country with a deeper abhorrence of slavery and a deeper love for the great liberator.

Had Abraham Lincoln died from any of the numerous ills to which flesh is heir; had he reached that good old age of which his vigorous constitution and his temperate habits gave promise; had he been permitted to see the end of his great work; had the solemn curtain of death come down but gradually—we should still have been smitten with a heavy grief, and treasured his name lovingly. But dying as he did die, by the red hand of violence, killed, assassinated, taken off without warning, not because of personal hate—for no man who knew Abraham Lincoln could hate him—but because of his fidelity to union and liberty, he is doubly dear to us, and his memory will be precious forever.

Fellow-citizens, I end, as I began with congratulations. We have done a good work for our race to-day. In doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator, we have been doing highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us; we have been fastening ourselves from a blighting scandal.

As an academic exercise, I wonder if you brought the topic of Lincoln up to the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, how many would start claiming he as a bad man.  I don't know for sure that any would, but I wonder.

Last edition:

Wednesday, April 12, 1876. Canadian Indian Act of 1876.

Labels: 1870s, 1876, Canada, First Nations, law

Thursday, March 2, 1876. Belknap resigns.

Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just before he was about to be impeached for corruption.

Belknap was a prewar politician and lawyer who had served as a Union General during and after the Civil War.

Last edition:

Wednesday, March 1, 1876. The Big Horn Expedition commences.

Labels: 1870s, 1876, Army, Big Horn Expedition, Frontier Wyoming, George Cook, Great Sioux War, The Frontier West

A 2025 Independence Day reflection.

I wasn't going to post a July 4th item this year, as I frankly feel pretty pessimistic about the state of the country.  But after reading some, I thought I ought to.

Independence Day marks, of course, the day 249 years ago when the Continental Congress declared the United States to be independent of the United Kingdom, which had founded the colonies.  It took over a year of pitched combat for Congress to reach that point.  What's really important about it, however, is not so much that the United Colonies declared independence from the mother country, but that it did it democratically and formed a democratic republic immediately.  Indeed, the country was acting as a democratic republic before it actually formed one officially.

From the very onset, the United States was a democracy.  I'll occasionally hear somebody who doesn't grasp that or understand it say "we're not a democracy, we're a republic".  That statements, which indeed was made by our serving Congress woman, shows a lack of understanding on what a democracy and a republic are.  We most definitely are a democracy, and always have been.

The initial structure of the country that was arrived upon by the founders of the country featured a very strong congress and a phenomenally weak president.  The US Constitution, it should be noted, is the country's second, not first, constitution.  The first one that featured that structure was the Articles of Confederation  It was John Hanson, not George Washington, who fulfilled the role of President at first.

The Articles didn't work well, but notable in them is that right from the onset the country was that, a country.  Some people will also occasionally claim that at first we were thirteen countries. That's nonsense.  We were, in fact, a putative country even before the Declaration of Independence, with the initial hope being that the country would be a union of fourteen, not thirteen, colonies.  The reluctance of the Quebecois to throw in with the virulently protestant colonies to their sound quashed that dream, with it setting the continuing tone that Canada wants nothing to do with being in the United States of America.  Nothing.

The Constitution of the US set us on an ongoing path which gives real concern to conservatives such as myself.  Right from the debate on the document there was a struggle between those who wanted to retain a weak national government and strong state governments.  States were, in fact, amazingly unrestrained in their powers early on.  In contrast, there were those who wanted a strong federal government and weak state governments.  The Federalist position, which was the more practical and realistic, ultimately won out, and it would have no matter what.  Even those who opposed Federalism found that they used its powers by necessity when they were in power.

That created, however, a structure in which the country converted the President of the Congress into the President of the United States.  Lacking a king, but remembering the model, the President occupied a position that vaguely recalled the monarch, in contrast to the British example in which the chief executive of the nation was and is a member of Parliament.  This worked well for a very long time, but it did put the US in a situation in which there existed a real possibility of a slow transfer of power to an executive divorced of the legislature.  

Indeed, expansion of executive power occurred nearly immediately.  It took a big jump during the Civil War, again by necessity, and it jumped again in the 20th Century.  Theodore Roosevelt expanded it as it suited his vigorous mindset.  Woodrow Wilson expanded it due to the Great War.  Franklin Roosevelt expanded it due to the emergency of the Great Depression and then World War Two.  Following World War Two the powers already expanded were thought normal, and again the Cold War seemed to make their retention necessary.  A President commited the country to a largescale war for the first time in the nation's history without a declaration of war when Truman sent forces into Korea.  This repeated itself when Johnson did the same with Vietnam.

Indeed, the disaster of the Vietnam War and the legacy of the Korean War caused Congress to attempt to claw back power with the War Powers Act.  The corruption of Richard Nixon resulted in Congress asserting its power as well.  But by the late 1960s the Democratic Party has also accommodated itself to revision of the national organic document, the Constitution, by a Supreme Court that simply made stuff up.  That accomodation started the development of the Democratic Party simply sitting on its hands and letting the courts rule to a large degree.  The Court became sort of an odd co chief executive, with the most egregious example being the absurd decision of Roe v. Wade, at least up until its progeny, Obergefell v. Hodges.

Abuses in the law, with Obergefell being the final example, and a Congress that simply accommodated itself to not really doing anything gave rise to the angered muddled populist far right, and the angry intellectual National Conservatives, the latter of which realised that the former was a plow mule that it could do its work with.  National Conservatives basically abandoned the concept of an expansive democracy in favor of a much more limited culturally correct one and took advantage of, and are taking advantage of, a chief executive whose mind is mush but whose ego is titanic.  They see him, effectively, as a "Red Caesar".

In the meantime, Mitch McConnell's Supreme Court began to hurl back to Congress the powers that it had dumped on the courts like city people dumping kittens on farms.  A Congress used to yapping but not doing anything was not prepared to exercise power once again, and very obviously still is not.  Much of what the Roberts Supreme Court has done in recent years really isn't radical at all, but its suddenly getting there, making decisions which are difficult not to view as seeking to empower the chief executive.

We can't tell where this will end up, and hence the pessimism. We may very well be in an era in which, when we look back a decade more hence, we will see a revived Congress that resumed its proper role, and a diminished Presidency, that's returned to its, even if that looks like something from, perhaps, the 1960s or 1970s.  Or we may seen an ineffective Congress and a nation ruled by a successor Red Ceasar who has more in common with Victor Orban than George Washington.

Perhaps we should be encouraged by the fact that the country has weathered previous existential threads to its democratic nature.  The War of 1812 presented one when a large portion of the country wanted nothing to do with the declared war and thought about leaving the infant nation.  The Mexican War saw something similar, and the Civil War, in which half the territory of the country attempted to leave in order to keep a large percentage of its population in chains.  World War One sparked further crises when it became unclear what the President's powers were in regard to a foreign war, and following the war the country acted wholly illegally towards those on the radical left.  During the Depression a right wing threat to the nation caused a putative coup to develop, the news of which was then suppressed.  Deep Communist penetration of the government in the 1930s and 1940s, was covered up in the 1950s and the reputation of the Congressman exposing it forever trashed, something his lack of restraint aided in.  The disaster of the Vietnam War and the following horror of Watergate caused many to feel that democracy in the US was dying.

Of course, we've never had a figure like Trump  before make it into the Oval Office.  The closest we've ever had to that was Jefferson Davis, in the Confederate White House, who at least was more genteel.  Huey Long was much like Trump, but of course he did not replace Franklin Roosevelt.

Still, there is reason for optimism.  Trump is not a popular figure.  He's wrecking conservatism which conservatives will have a hard time overcoming in the remainder of my lifetime, but there are signs that his bolt is now shot, in spite of his budget bill.  So much political capital was spent on that that it will bring the Democrats into power in Congress in 2026. They'll have to act like a Congress at that time.  Repairing the damage will take time, but perhaps not as much time as might be feared.  The populists may have done the country a favor by peeling back the lazy ineffectiveness of the pre 2016 Congress, and the National Conservatives may be doing the country a favor by restoring some of the basic elements of conservatism. They're both damaging the country enormously by being inhumane.

When the reign of the Red Ceasar ends, and I think that will be by this time next year, maybe  Congress will go back to its proper role and the gutless cowards of the GOP who have allowed this to occur will be retired in disgrace.  The country got over the Civil War.  There's hope it can get over this.

Saturday, February 27, 1875. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 passes Congress

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed the Senate and headed to President Grant's desk. The act authorised Federal force to protect individual rights, something that would start dying within two years as a result of the 1876 election bringing Reconstruction to an end.

It was of course a Republican bill.  It can be assumed that if the same bill were up for passage today, current Republicans would oppose it.

Last edition:

Thursday, February 17, 1875. No Chinese women.

Labels: 1870s, 1875, China, concubinage, Ethnicities, Immigration, polygamy, Sex, The relationship between men and women, Women

Monday, January 25, 1875. The Pinkertons raid the James home.

Pinkerton agents raided the Clay County, Missouri home of Frank and Jesse James. They were aided, in this effort, by Unionist who had opposed Missouri throwing in with the traitorous South in the Civil War, and who retained grievances in the violent post Civil War world of Missouri.

Frank and Jesse were not there, but a fire-bomb they used killed their brother Archie and injured their mother severely. The raid caused intense anger in Missouri, both for its violence, and due to retained insurrectionist sympathies.

Last edition:

Thursday, January 15, 1875. Restoring the gold standard.

Labels: 1870s, 1875, Alsace-Lorraine, Currency, Economics, It was because of the Civil War, Medicine, Personalities, Protestant, religion, The Gold Standard, The written word, U.S. Grant

Thursday, January 15, 1875. Restoring the gold standard.

The Specie Payment Resumption Act of January 14, 1875 restored the gold standard through the redemption of previously unbacked United States Notes.

It also attacked inflationary policies that arose during the Civil War.

President Grant address Congress regarding it, stating:

To the Senate of the United States:

Senate bill No. 1044, "to provide for the resumption of specie payments," is before me, and this day receives my signature of approval.

I venture upon this unusual method of conveying the notice of approval to the "House in which the measure originated" because of its great importance to the country at large and in order to suggest further legislation which seems to me essential to make this law effective.

It is a subject of congratulation that a measure has become law which fixes a date when specie resumption shall commence and implies an obligation on the part of Congress, if in its power, to give such legislation as may prove necessary to redeem this promise.

To this end I respectfully call your attention to a few suggestions:

First. The necessity of an increased revenue to carry out the obligation of adding to the sinking fund annually 1 per cent of the public debt, amounting now to about $34,000,000 per annum, and to carry out the promises of this measure to redeem, under certain contingencies, eighty millions of the present legal-tenders, and, without contingency, the fractional currency now in circulation.

How to increase the surplus revenue is for Congress to devise, but I will venture to suggest that the duty on tea and coffee might be restored without permanently enhancing the cost to the consumers, and that the 10 per cent horizontal reduction of the tariff on articles specified in the law of June 6, 1872, be repealed. The supply of tea and coffee already on hand in the United States would in all probability be advanced in price by adopting this measure. But it is known that the adoption of free entry to those articles of necessity did not cheapen them, but merely added to the profits of the countries producing them, or of the middlemen in those countries, who have the exclusive trade in them.

Second. The first section of the bill now under consideration provides that the fractional currency shall be redeemed in silver coin as rapidly as practicable. There is no provision preventing the fluctuation in the value of the paper currency. With gold at a premium of anything over 10 per cent above the currency in use, it is probable, almost certain, that silver would be bought up for exportation as fast as it was put out, or until change would become so scarce as to make the premium on it equal to the premium on gold, or sufficiently high to make it no longer profitable to buy for export, thereby causing a direct loss to the community at large and great embarrassment to trade.

As the present law commands final resumption on the 1st day of January, 1879, and as the gold receipts by the Treasury are larger than the gold payments and the currency receipts are smaller than the currency payments, thereby making monthly sales of gold necessary to meet current currency expenses, it occurs to me that these difficulties might be remedied by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to redeem legal-tender notes, whenever presented in sums of not less than $100 and multiples thereof, at a premium for gold of 10 per cent, less interest at the rate of 2 1/2 per cent per annum from the 1st day of January, 1875, to the date of putting this law into operation, and diminishing this premium at the same rate until final resumption, changing the rate of premium demanded from time to time as the interest amounts to one-quarter of 1 per cent. I suggest this rate of interest because it would bring currency at par with gold at the date fixed by law for final resumption. I suggest 10 per cent as the demand premium at the beginning because I believe this rate would insure the retention of silver in the country for change.

The provisions of the third section of the act will prevent combinations being made to exhaust the Treasury of coin.

With such a law it is presumable that no gold would be called for not required for legitimate business purposes. When large amounts of coin should be drawn from the Treasury, correspondingly large amounts of currency would be withdrawn from circulation, thus causing a sufficient stringency in currency to stop the outward flow of coin.

The advantages of a currency of a fixed known value would also be reached. In my opinion, by the enactment of such a law business and industries would revive and the beginning of prosperity on a firm basis would be reached.

Other means of increasing revenue than those suggested should probably be devised, and also other legislation.

In fact, to carry out the first section of the act another mint becomes a necessity. With the present facilities for coinage, it would take a period probably beyond that fixed by law for final specie resumption to coin the silver necessary to transact the business of the country.

There are now smelting furnaces, for extracting the silver and gold from the ores brought from the mountain territories, in Chicago, St. Louis, and Omaha--three in the former city--and as much of the change required will be wanted in the Mississippi Valley States, and as the metals to be coined come from west of those States, and, as I understand, the charges for transportation of bullion from either of the cities named to the mint in Philadelphia or to New York City amount to $4 for each $1,000 worth, with an equal expense for transportation back, it would seem a fair argument in favor of adopting one or more of those cities as the place or places for the establishment of new coining facilities.

I have ventured upon this subject with great diffidence, because it is so unusual to approve a measure--as I most heartily do this, even if no further legislation is attainable at this time--and to announce the fact by message. But I do so because I feel that it is a subject of such vital importance to the whole country that it should receive the attention of and be discussed by Congress and the people through the press, and in every way, to the end that the best and most satisfactory course may be reached of executing what I deem most beneficial legislation on a most vital question to the interests and prosperity of the nation.

Physician and Lutheran minister Albert Schweitzer, in Kaysersberg in Alsace

Last edition:

Saturday, January 9, 1875. Officers' Quarters Fire at D. A. Russell.

Labels: 1860s, 1870s, 1875, Army, Cheyenne Wyoming, F. E. Warren AFB, Frontier Wyoming, Late Post, Wyoming, Wyoming (Cheyenne)

Tuesday, August 25, 1874. The Coushatta Massacre.

The terroristic White League attacked and killed African American farmer Thomas Floyd in the first of a series of attacks on Republican Party members and freedmen in Louisiana.  Ultimately several deaths occured, but nobody was brought to trial in spite of the arrest of 25 people.

The attacks were part of an overall effort to drive Republicans out of the state.

While it would anger some people for it to be noted, the Republican Party at the time was the liberal party in favor of expansive democracy, whereas the Democratic Party was the opposite.  Just as Louisiana's Democrats of the time regarded the Republicans as unspeakable enemies, the opposite is true today.  Likewise, as the Democratic Party was the party of the white South in 1874, the Republican Party is the same now. 

Last edition:

Wednesday, August 19, 1874. Taking back.

Labels: 1870s, 1874, Executive Orders, Montana, Native Americans, U.S. Grant

Sunday, July 5, 1874. The Battle of Liberty Place.

The Democratic-Conservative White League, a terrorist organization made up of Confederate veterans, attacked the racially integrated Republican Metropolitan Police and the state militia in New Orleans.  The police were defeated and the White League held the city for three days before Federal troops intervened.

Former Confederate general James Longstreet was taken captive by the White League when he tried to intervene to restore order.  Following Federal intervention the Democrats walked out of the legislature and Louisiana effectively had two legislatures claiming control of the state until 1877.

Last edition:

Saturday, July 4, 1874. The Bates Battle.

Labels: 1870s, 1874, Army, Blog Mirror, cavalry, Frontier Wyoming, Indian Wars, Native Americans, Shoshone people, The Bates Battle, The Frontier West, Wyoming

Christian Nationalism, National Conservatism and Southern Populism. Eh?

Nearly the Southern Populist anthem, Sweet Home Alabama.

I should start off with a massive series of disclaimers here, particularly as Southern Populism and Southern Agrarianism are not the same thing, although they are related.  The terms are easy to confuse.

But confusion is at the core of what we're trying to explore here.

Additionally, Southerners tend to be proud of the South in a way that not all regions of the country are proud of their regions.  Native Westerners tend to be very nativist and provincial, and proud of the West, or more often of their particular states.  Southerners tend to be proud of the entire South, with Texas and Oklahoma, at least by my observation, particularly proud of their states.  Louisiana, which has its own unique culture, does as well.  While I put Lynrd Skynrd up above, for a reason, I'd note that perhaps, in this regard, I should have posted the lyrics by Ally Venable to the song she co performed with Buddy Guy, Texas Louisiana:

Texas

Louisiana whew

That's where we come from

Texas

Yeah Louisiana

Always on the run

Well I'm just starting out

I ain't never done

Hey there neighbor

Get on in this house

Like sugarcane and cactus

We're both from the south

Texas

Louisiana

That's where we come from

Texas

Yeah Louisiana

We're both old and young

I'm the farmers daughter

I'm a poor man's son

Love Stevie ray

Little Walter too

Turn it up Buddy

I wanna jam with you

Texas

Louisiana too

That's where we come from

Texas

Whew Louisiana too

Together having fun

Teacher used to tell me

Two heads is better than one

So, I'm not trying to pick on the South, or Southerners.

Recently we've written two posts, both of which related to Susan Stubson's op ed in the New York Times decrying what she thinks is the impact of Christian Nationalism on the Wyoming GOP.  Those articles were:

Blog Mirror: Christian nationalism and how it’s hurting Wyoming

The End of the Reformation I. Christian Nationalism becomes a local debate. . .

Here's the thing, however.  She's confused.

What Stubson's actually writing about, but doesn't know it, is the impact of Southern Populism on Wyoming, including Southern Cultural Christianity, not Christian Nationalism.  Christian Nationalism hasn't really made an appearance in Wyoming and frankly, while it's been floating around in nascent form in the US since Dreher wrote The Benedict Option, it hasn't gathered a strong street level attraction anywhere.  It's more of an intellectual movement.

Given that the overall terms here are poorly defined, particularly in regard to Christian Nationalism, it's easy to see why the authors of these articles are confused.  It's all the easier to see why Stubson would be confused, as she's a Reagan Republican and a fallen away Catholic who fell into Evangelical Protestantism.  There's a straight line between Ronald Reagan and Southern Populism's spread into the GOP at large, and therefore, even though I'm sure he would be personally horrified, there's a straight line between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.  One, basically, begat the other.

Christian Nationalism, like it or hate it, is an intellectual movement, and is one in the same with National Conservatism.  Its founder in American politics, if not its overall founder, is Patrick Deneen and its backers can be found in the pages of R. R. Reno's First Things.  Quite frankly, that puts it in the intellectual heavyweight category.  It's issued a manifesto, and the signers of it include some well known conservative thinkers.  Deneen has issued at least two well regarded books on the topic. Its central thesis is that liberalism has failed, in part due to its success, and is now consuming itself, and the entire culture of the West with it, by a frenzied orgy of libertine, mostly sexually focused, individualism.  What needs to be done, it holds, is the preservation of democracy, but Illiberal Democracy, with the boundary lines of the culture externally enforced.  It sets its manifesto out as follows:

1. National Independence. We wish to see a world of independent nations. Each nation capable of self-government should chart its own course in accordance with its own particular constitutional, linguistic, and religious inheritance. Each has a right to maintain its own borders and conduct policies that will benefit its own people. We endorse a policy of rearmament by independent self-governing nations and of defensive alliances whose purpose is to deter imperialist aggression. 

2. Rejection of Imperialism and Globalism. We support a system of free cooperation and competition among nation-states, working together through trade treaties, defensive alliances, and other common projects that respect the independence of their members. But we oppose transferring the authority of elected governments to transnational or supranational bodies—a trend that pretends to high moral legitimacy even as it weakens representative government, sows public alienation and distrust, and strengthens the influence of autocratic regimes. Accordingly, we reject imperialism in its various contemporary forms: We condemn the imperialism of China, Russia, and other authoritarian powers. But we also oppose the liberal imperialism of the last generation, which sought to gain power, influence, and wealth by dominating other nations and trying to remake them in its own image. 

3. National Government. The independent nation-state is instituted to establish a more perfect union among the diverse communities, parties, and regions of a given nation, to provide for their common defense and justice among them, and to secure the general welfare and the blessings of liberty for this time and for future generations. We believe in a strong but limited state, subject to constitutional restraints and a division of powers. We recommend a drastic reduction in the scope of the administrative state and the policy-making judiciary that displace legislatures representing the full range of a nation’s interests and values. We recommend the federalist principle, which prescribes a delegation of power to the respective states or subdivisions of the nation so as to allow greater variation, experimentation, and freedom. However, in those states or subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order.

4. God and Public Religion. No nation can long endure without humility and gratitude before God and fear of his judgment that are found in authentic religious tradition. For millennia, the Bible has been our surest guide, nourishing a fitting orientation toward God, to the political traditions of the nation, to public morals, to the defense of the weak, and to the recognition of things rightly regarded as sacred. The Bible should be read as the first among the sources of a shared Western civilization in schools and universities, and as the rightful inheritance of believers and non-believers alike. Where a Christian majority exists, public life should be rooted in Christianity and its moral vision, which should be honored by the state and other institutions both public and private. At the same time, Jews and other religious minorities are to be protected in the observance of their own traditions, in the free governance of their communal institutions, and in all matters pertaining to the rearing and education of their children. Adult individuals should be protected from religious or ideological coercion in their private lives and in their homes. 

5. The Rule of Law. We believe in the rule of law. By this we mean that citizens and foreigners alike, and both the government and the people, must accept and abide by the laws of the nation. In America, this means accepting and living in accordance with the Constitution of 1787, the amendments to it, duly enacted statutory law, and the great common law inheritance. All agree that the repair and improvement of national legal traditions and institutions is at times necessary. But necessary change must take place through the law. This is how we preserve our national traditions and our nation itself. Rioting, looting, and other unacceptable public disorder should be swiftly put to an end. 

6. Free Enterprise. We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state. But the free market cannot be absolute. Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation. Today, globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally. At the same time, trans-national corporations showing little loyalty to any nation damage public life by censoring political speech, flooding the country with dangerous and addictive substances and pornography, and promoting obsessive, destructive personal habits. A prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare. Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit-taking by organs of state power, should be energetically exposed and opposed. 

7. Public Research. At a time when China is rapidly overtaking America and the Western nations in fields crucial for security and defense, a Cold War-type program modeled on DARPA, the “moon-shot,” and SDI is needed to focus large-scale public resources on scientific and technological research with military applications, on restoring and upgrading national manufacturing capacity, and on education in the physical sciences and engineering. On the other hand, we recognize that most universities are at this point partisan and globalist in orientation and vehemently opposed to nationalist and conservative ideas. Such institutions do not deserve taxpayer support unless they rededicate themselves to the national interest. Education policy should serve manifest national needs. 

8. Family and Children. We believe the traditional family is the source of society’s virtues and deserves greater support from public policy. The traditional family, built around a lifelong bond between a man and a woman, and on a lifelong bond between parents and children, is the foundation of all other achievements of our civilization. The disintegration of the family, including a marked decline in marriage and childbirth, gravely threatens the wellbeing and sustainability of democratic nations. Among the causes are an unconstrained individualism that regards children as a burden, while encouraging ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation as an alternative to the responsibilities of family and congregational life. Economic and cultural conditions that foster stable family and congregational life and child-raising are priorities of the highest order. 

9. Immigration. Immigration has made immense contributions to the strength and prosperity of Western nations. But today’s penchant for uncontrolled and unassimilated immigration has become a source of weakness and instability, not strength and dynamism, threatening internal dissension and ultimately dissolution of the political community. We note that Western nations have benefited from both liberal and restrictive immigration policies at various times. We call for much more restrictive policies until these countries summon the wit to establish more balanced, productive, and assimilationist policies. Restrictive policies may sometimes include a moratorium on immigration. 

10. Race. We believe that all men are created in the image of God and that public policy should reflect that fact. No person’s worth or loyalties can be judged by the shape of his features, the color of his skin, or the results of a lab test. The history of racialist ideology and oppression and its ongoing consequences require us to emphasize this truth. We condemn the use of state and private institutions to discriminate and divide us against one another on the basis of race. The cultural sympathies encouraged by a decent nationalism offer a sound basis for conciliation and unity among diverse communities. The nationalism we espouse respects, and indeed combines, the unique needs of particular minority communities and the common good of the nation as a whole.

That's not what the leaders of the Wyoming GOP hold dear to their hearts, although they'd likely say they're for all of that.

Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceean Creed, something that has more to do with Christian Nationalism than anything coming out of the populst wing of the GOP.

And, again, like it or not, Christian Nationalism looks more to Antioch of the 1st Century, and then to Rome, and Constantinople.  Its founders, the way it views itself, would be, it imagines, are found there, not in Philadelphia in 1776, or in Richmond from 1860 to 1865.

They wouldn't be getting down to Sweet Home Alabama or Texas Louisiana.

Southern Populism, however, grows out of the same soil that Southern Agrarianism did, coming up from part of the same culture.  A person might be tempted, therefore, to look to I'll Take My Stand as its manifesto, and they'd be partially correct in doing so, but not fully so.  The authors of that agrarian manifesto were correct in noting that the South had an Agrarian culture, and a Christian one.  Many American agrarians have thought, with some justification, that one must be the other, although oddly it's rarely noted that one of the most successful North American agrarian cultures was just that, but not Protestant.  The Quebec culture prior to the Quiet Revolution was agrarian, and Catholic.  For that matter, the Red River Rebellion was an uprising of Catholic agrarian Métis against the intrusion of Protestant English culture in the form of the English cultured Canadian government.  

Councillors and officers of the Provisional Government of the Métis Nation, circa 1869. Front row, L-R: Robert O'Lone, Paul Proulx. Centre row, L-R: Pierre Poitras, John Bruce, Louis Riel, John O'Donoghue, François Dauphinais. Back row, L-R: Bonnet Tromage, Pierre de Lorme, Thomas Bunn, Xavier Page, Baptiste Beauchemin, Baptiste Tournond, 

Therefore, the point raised by the Southern Agrarians isn't incorrect, but misunderstood, perhaps even by themselves.

Christianity in the American South was heavily impacted by the Civil War.  Going into the war, the Episcopal Church was the central Christian denomination of the South, even contributing a Bishop to the ranks of Confederate generals.  Behind it was the Presbyterian Church, the church of displaced Scots from Ireland.  Always present in the South, however, and to a smaller degree in the North, were numerous informal Christian pastors and pastors and congregations descendant from earlier dissenters. 

Confederate Lieutenant-General Leonidas Polk, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana and founder of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America.  Popular with his troops, he was such a bad general that one historian has noted that the shot that killed him in battle was one of the worst shots of the Civil War, as it removed him from leadership.

 

The war brought these individuals to the forefront in Southern religion.  Episcopalianism was the Church that was associated with the Southern elite and hence failure.  Just as some poorly catechized Catholics have abandoned their church in the wake of priest scandals, average Southerners did so to a large degree following the war.

The rise of certain branches of American Protestantism had occurred before the war, for that matter, which came in the midst of the Great Awakening period.  That period was particularly fertile in the US for the advancement of Protestant faiths that were not rooted in a formal structure, although they created new ones or leaned on informal preexisting ones.  This was not, by any means, confined to the South, but the war did cause a post-war condition in the South in which the Episcopal church wanted and other strains of Protestantism advanced. The Episcopal Church was simply too associated with the disaster of the Civil War and those who had led the South into it.

The war also had the impact of spreading white Southerners across the county.  The Great Migration of black Southerners would wait until the early 20th Century, for the most part, but a large-scale migration of white Southerners started soon after the war, or in reality even during it.  It wasn't massive enough to create the same sort of demographic impacts the Great Migration would, but it did result in the spread of Southerners and Southerners attached to informal strains of Protestantism across the country.  It did not, however, result in a big cultural change.  The religious shift did, however, have a significant cultural impact in the South.

Episcopalianism became northern based following the war and when the Civil Rights Era arrived, it backed it.  Black churches also, and obviously, backed it. But informal cultural Southern Christianity, which had advanced with its very loose structure, in the South after the war opposed it, and often in an unstructured cultural way.   Without the structure of Episcopalianism, or of Presbyterianism, and having adopted certain doctrines that encouraged an anti-Biblical presumption of easy salvation, a certain "do it your own" or individualistic approach, while still very conservative, became the norm such that even people which very loose religious affiliation could feel themselves part of the overall fold and could mix their cultural views with their religious ones easily.

Oil booms of the 50s/60s, 70s, and the very late 20tth Century and early 21st Century had the impact of really bringing up a lot of workers from Texas and Oklahoma during that period, and that in turn really altered the Protestant religious landscape of the oil producing regions of the West at the exact same time that the collapse of the Reformation saw the Mainline Protestant churches in the US became to rapidly contract. The Mainline Protestant Churches had dominated Protestantism outside the South, and in the Rocky Mountain West.  IN the Rocky Mountain West, however, lack of religious attachment was remarkably strong, which impacted how this worked.  Wyoming was, and indeed remains, the least religious state in the U.S., which in turn meant that religion had a very muted impact on politics.  Those who were faithful members of churches were remarkably unwilling to mix faith and politics, and even strongly religious politicians were almost never mention their religious affiliation.  A scene like we recently had, with UW student republicans giving an invocation over a right wing Secretary of State, would simply not have occurred.  Indeed, an effort by a very conservative LDS legislator in the 1980s to regulate pornography was met without right derision.

Whether this is good or bad is, perhaps, dependent upon your religious views, but it was an aspect of life in Wyoming in particular, and in much of the Rocky Mountain West.  It is not as if there were not many churchgoers, there were, but openly incorporating religious beliefs into political positions just didn't occur.

That something was changing should have been obvious, perhaps, by the growth of local mega churches, even in this region.  Prior to the 1990s, loosely defined Protestants tended to gravitate towards an established church, often a Baptist Church, which had loose affiliations, or oddly enough, if they attended church once or twice a year, a Catholic Church.  But with mega churches that muted their denominational affiliation or which claimed none (something that is in fact never really true), they started to gravitate in that direction.  This became obvious first with funerals, oddly enough, which were often held in one of these churches for people who had no real religious affiliation other than a loose or even informal Christianity.  It became a little easy to tell who these people were simply by reading in their obituaries where the funerals would be. 

At the same time, however, this new strain, or rather newly imported strain, of Christianity did very much take root.  People who would have previously gone to a Baptist or Presbyterian Church started attending these, with the latter two suffering as a result.  A partial example of this is here:

City Park Church, formerly First Presbyterian Church, Casper Wyoming

This is City Park Church, and was formerly, as noted below in the original entry, the First Presbyterian Church.

This Presbyterian Church is located one block away from St. Mark's Episcopal Church and St. Anthony of Padua Catholic Church, all of which are separated from each other by City Park. 

The corner stone of the church gives the dates 1913 1926. I'm not sure why there are two dates, but the church must have been completed in 1926.

This century old church became the home of the former First Baptist Church congregation on February 28, 2020, and as noted in a thread we'll link in below, had been experiencing a lot of changes prior to that.

The original entry here was one of the very first on this blog and dated at least back as far as January 25, 2011.  While the architecture hasn't changed at all, with the recent change our original entry became misleading to an extent.

That this had crossed over into politics became obvious with the candidacy of Foster Freiss. Extremely wealthy, and with little connection to Wyoming other than maintaining a home in Jackson, the Wisconsin born Freiss had connections with Texas, and campaigned in a style that recalled the South of the 1970s.  Daisy Duke, t-shirt clad, young women appeared, freezing, in campaign rallies for the first time in the state's history, and so far the only time.  A car that appeared in town, with Colorado license plates declaring "Christians for Freiss" made it obvious what was occurring.

And that's where the state's GOP went.

Not that it's done so cleanly.  A person who knows the state's demographics would note that in certain regions of the state, another religion has a strong representation in the GOP.  Some newly imported members of "Freedom Caucus" are likely members of Mainline or Apostolic Churches, with one probably being Catholic.  Chuck Gray is Catholic.  To an extent, this shows how lines blur along religious and political lines, and it's always difficult to draw bright lines.  To another extent, however, it might also show had American Catholicism has become Protestantized at the pew level with some people.¹

This isn't Christian Nationalism.

Christian Nationalism looks very much outwards, rather than inward, in its view, and if the Christianity of Wyoming's GOP, and that of the nation writ large right now, looks towards South Carolina in 1865 without realizing it, Christian Nationalism looks toward Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, and to some extent, Moscow via Kyiv in 988.

Large revival meeting, 1909, in a National Guard Armory

Put another way, the Christianity of the current GOP really looks towards a rural Southern Christian revival meeting, or at least a revival meeting, of the 1950s, while Christian Nationalism looks either to the WASP past prior to 1950, or to an Apostolic Christian ghetto of the same period.

They aren't the same at all.

Which is why Stubson's commentary was off.

The intellectual heavyweights of the Christian Nationalist movement show that.  Rod Dreher was perhaps there early, and he's a devout Eastern Orthodox Christian, having converted from Catholicism, which he had converted to from Protestantism.  Patrick Dineen is a Latin Rite Catholic.  R. R. Reno is a  Catholic convert from Episcopalianism.  You can find non-Apostolic Christians in the movement, but you have to hunt for them.

Moreover, for nationalist, they're surprisingly international.  Dreher has self exiled himself to Hungary, which many in his camp look towards as a model.²   Poland is held up as an example as well.  Christian Nationalist heralded the election of Giorgia Meloni, who claims to defend "God, fatherland, and family and defines herself as “a woman, a mother, an Italian and Christian”.  Meloni, of course, comes from a Catholic country, Italy, and while her actual adherence to the Faith would seem to be questionable, whatever brand of Christian she is, she's likely culturally Catholic.

What the essential essence of Christian Nationalism holds is that the West, by which it means countries in Europe, made up of European descended people, or countries which have a European culture by whatever means, are essentially (Apostolic) Christian in culture, above everything else. Next to that, each nation, they'd hold, has its own individual culture.  After that, but only after all of that is accepted, they're for democracy.

Hence, they are National Conservatives, or Illiberal Democrats.  Their attachment to democracy comes after 1) an attachment to (Apostolic) Christianity and 2) national culture (formed by an attachment to Christianity), but it is there.

That's distinctly different from modern Populism, which doesn't seem to have a strong real attachment to democracy right now, or to the extent that it does, it's exclusionary.³   Democracy is for the right people, who are of the right culture, and who espouse the American Civil Religion.

Put in terms stated by Dinneen:

As Montesquieu pointed out long ago, democracy is the most demanding regime, given its demands for civic virtue. The cultivation of virtue requires the thick presence of virtue-forming and virtue-supporting institutions, but these are precisely the institutions and practices that liberalism aims to hollow and eviscerate in the name of individual liberty.

Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed.  

National Conservatives would seek the thick preservation of virtue forming and virtue supporting institutions.  Liberals would rip them down.  Populists, right now, would simply dictate their views, expecting them to be accepted.  As Dinneen notes, and correctly, about Liberalism, and by extension the opposite views of National Conservatives/Christian Nationalists:

[W]hat is bemoaned by the right is due not to the left but to the consequences of its own deepest commitments, especially to liberal economics. And it seeks to show that what is bemoaned by the left is due not to the right but to the consequences of its own deepest commitments, especially to the dissolution of social norms, particularly those regarding sexual behavior and identity. The “wedding” between global corporations and this sexual agenda is one of the most revealing yet widely ignored manifestations of this deeper synergy.

Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed

That's also why, quite frankly, these two movements, while they are overlapping right now, are in actuality deeply antithetical to each other, and it's also why, ironically, the very thing that Stubson misidentifies and fears grew out of and is part of the thing that she claims to wish to preserve.

Because National Conservatism/Christian Nationalism is, at the end of the day, rooted in the same concern that caused Dreher to write The Benedict Option, it looks at something much larger than the nation.  The nation that National Conservatism/Christian Nationalism seeks to preserve, overall, is Christendom, with various nations just subparts of that.  Christian Nationalism, or once again National Conservatism, look at nations the same way that Carolingians did.  Yes, there are countries, and yes they do matter, but not as much as something else does.  Southern Populist, however, are America Firsters.

Autograph of Charles the Great.

Put another way, Christian Nationalist feel that the Council of Nicea is of paramount importance, but would reject the concept that the U.S. Constitution is some sort of religious document.  They aren't "Constitutional Conservatives", confident that this somehow equates with religiosity, but rather Council Conservatives confident of their religious grounding.

If that's understood, there really aren't any Christian Nationalist in Wyoming politics, openly.  There may be, without their realizing it, but they aren't the same group as the Freedom Caucus.  The Wyoming Freedom Caucus is made up of populist strongly influenced by Southern Populism, which is where their religiosity comes from.  It's why they can speak in religious terms with such confidence and also support somebody who is a serial polygamist and have a leader who has been accused of serious moral misconduct at some point in the past.  The movement can, at its core, believe that its members were once saved and therefore always saved, and battle with certainty, whereas Christian Nationalist worry about the entire West losing its soul.

All of this undoubtedly sounds like an endorsement of Christian Nationalism, but it isn't.  It is a condemnation of current American populism.  And we are expressing some sympathy with Christian Nationalism in its recognition of what Patrick Dineen has written in regard to liberalism and how it is destroying Western culture, which it is.  Liberalism has succeeded so well, it's now consuming itself by consuming reality.  

Its warning would be simple, recalling its oldest lessons: at the end of the path of liberation lies enslavement. Such liberation from all obstacles is finally illusory, for two simple reasons: human appetite is insatiable and the world is limited. For both of these reasons, we cannot be truly free in the modern sense. We can never attain satiation, and will be eternally driven by our desires rather than satisfied by their attainment. And in our pursuit of the satisfaction of our limitless desires, we will very quickly exhaust the planet.

Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed.

So if this isn't an endorsement of National Conservatism or Christian Nationalism, why?

Well, because prior experience shows that mixing politics with religion, officially, can have unintended results.  It fails, I suppose, to take heed of the council given in the letter to Diognetus, it not immediately, sooner or later.

Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life. Their teaching is not based upon reveries inspired by the curiosity of men. Unlike some other people, they champion no purely human doctrine. With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign. 

And yet there is something extraordinary about their lives. They live in their own countries as though they were only passing through. They play their full role as citizens, but labor under all the disabilities of aliens. Any country can be their homeland, but for them their homeland, wherever it may be, is a foreign country. Like others, they marry and have children, but they do not expose them. They share their meals, but not their wives.  

They live in the flesh, but they are not governed by the desires of the flesh. They pass their days upon earth, but they are citizens of heaven. Obedient to the laws, they yet live on a level that transcends the law. Christians love all men, but all men persecute them. Condemned because they are not understood, they are put to death, but raised to life again. They live in poverty, but enrich many; they are totally destitute, but possess an abundance of everything. They suffer dishonor, but that is their glory. They are defamed, but vindicated. A blessing is their answer to abuse, deference their response to insult. For the good they do they receive the punishment of malefactors, but even then they, rejoice, as though receiving the gift of life. They are attacked by the Jews as aliens, they are persecuted by the Greeks, yet no one can explain the reason for this hatred. 

To speak in general terms, we may say that the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body. As the soul is present in every part of the body, while remaining distinct from it, so Christians are found in all the cities of the world, but cannot be identified with the world. As the visible body contains the invisible soul, so Christians are seen living in the world, but their religious life remains unseen. The body hates the soul and wars against it, not because of any injury the soul has done it, but because of the restriction the soul places on its pleasures. Similarly, the world hates the Christians, not because they have done it any wrong, but because they are opposed to its enjoyments. 

Christians love those who hate them just as the soul loves the body and all its members despite the body's hatred. It is by the soul, enclosed within the body, that the body is held together, and similarly, it is by the Christians, detained in the world as in a prison, that the world is held together. The soul, though immortal, has a mortal dwelling place; and Christians also live for a time amidst perishable things, while awaiting the freedom from change and decay that will be theirs in heaven. As the soul benefits from the deprivation of food and drink, so Christians flourish under persecution. Such is the Christian’s lofty and divinely appointed function, from which he is not permitted to excuse himself.  

That last line is particularly distinctive, "As the soul benefits from the deprivation of food and drink, so Christians flourish under persecution.  Such is the Christian’s lofty and divinely appointed function, from which he is not permitted to excuse himself."  

A lot in the Populist right, like those practicing American Civil Religion itself, have excused themselves from an awful lot.  Apostolic Christians really can't.

And if the West's needs to be rescued from liberal excess, National Conservatism/Christian Nationalism needs to be careful.  For one thing, it would need to be serious about this item in its manifesto:

6. Free Enterprise. We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state. But the free market cannot be absolute. Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation. Today, globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally. At the same time, trans-national corporations showing little loyalty to any nation damage public life by censoring political speech, flooding the country with dangerous and addictive substances and pornography, and promoting obsessive, destructive personal habits. A prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare. Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit-taking by organs of state power, should be energetically exposed and opposed. 

That gets directly to this:

[W]hat is bemoaned by the right is due not to the left but to the consequences of its own deepest commitments, especially to liberal economics. And it seeks to show that what is bemoaned by the left is due not to the right but to the consequences of its own deepest commitments, especially to the dissolution of social norms, particularly those regarding sexual behavior and identity. The “wedding” between global corporations and this sexual agenda is one of the most revealing yet widely ignored manifestations of this deeper synergy.

Patrick J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed.

That will be a tall order for conservatives who have held for decades that free enterprise equals corporate capitalism, and still do.  Right wing populists basically, and contrary to their tradition, hold the same thing.

Moreover, National Conservatives will have to be careful not to so blend their faith with their politics that the politics takes over and damages the faith. Ultimately, that's the lesson, maybe, of Quebec. Ireland, and Spain, all of which have been down a type of this road before.  It might well prove to be the lesson of contemporary Russia as well.

Charles DeGualle was a devout Catholic, but he did not attempt to force France into being a religious state.  Éamon de Valera basically did.  Now, having said that, in spite of the news regarding Ireland, Ireland is still a very devout Catholic state, so it can be argued that De Valera was right.  In both instances, democratic systems were preserved, which meant that the state's allegiances could be changed.  It's notable that they have survived that with a retained, if bruised, conservatism that might not otherwise be there.  Of course, once again, you can argue that about Spain.

Deneen seems less keen about preserving democracy, and that a danger here.

Elections provide the appearance of self-governance but mainly function to satiate any residual civic impulse before we return to our lives as employees and consumers.

Patrick J. Deneen.  That suggests a willingness to disregard democracy as being unreal.  History has shown, however, that to be incorrect.

Moreover, a close association with the state can be damaging to the very values that are sought to be protected.  Quebec's religious conservatism suffered heavily when the Quite Revolution came about, in no small part because the guardians of that tradition turned out not to be as loyal to it as thought.

And, finally, we have to recall that in some quarters, namely the US, and perhaps to a lesser extent Canada, well. . . in other places too, a close association with the state by Apostolic Christians can be corrosive.  In the end, Protestants don't really like us, and in the end, we have to make compromises with the state if we're really intending to govern from the pews, so to speak.

So does this mean that the Christian Nationalist have no point, and all is folly?  We must descend into Gomorrah unimpeded?

No.  But there are dangers here.  And probably the first thing we need to do is to be simply clear about our values in a secular society, and even in the pews, where there are also plenty who are willing to compromise Christianity.

These are, any way you look at it perilous times.

Footnotes

1. Javing said that, at the pew level, and influenced by the net making things more available now than at any time in the world's history, the direction is toward 1) orthodoxy or 2) Catholic traditionalism.  The 

2. Viktor Orbán is a member of the Protestant Hungarian Reformed Church, which might be compared to Presbyterianism, but his wife is Catholic and their children were raised as Catholic.  Katalin Novak is also a member of the same church. Hungary has a surprisingly diverse religious make up, with the Catholic claiming(37.2% of the population, Calvinist 11.6% , Lutheran's 2.2%, Eastern Catholic's 1.8%.  18.2% claim no religion and 27.2% simply won't respond to a question on the matter.

3.  Many hardcore right wing populist assert right now that elections that have not gone their way were stolen, which they were not.  However, just below the surface on some of this rhetoric is the suggestion that those who vote the other way are illigitimate voters.  Illiberal Democrats would seek to stifle "progressive" views anti democratically, but right wing populists take a more frightening position that those who hold the opposite views don't count at all.