pre-script: on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump made an in-person, public address to alert the American people of what he called "election fraud," whereby he evidenced faults in the voting verification standards for the Nov-2020 election as well as hundreds of thousands of votes supposedly added to certain state tallies. he was later impeached for "incitement of insurrection" after a scheduled assembly turned into a deadly riot/ assault upon the Capitol building.
"...acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances."
-Pres. Abraham Lincoln, 1861 Inaugural Address
those circumstances, i believe, are what separate the Revolutionary War from the Civil. why are we taught that some states united against the British government is good, yet the revolt of the South against the United States government is bad? for, later in his speech, Lincoln spoke of the following "right":
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."
-Pres. Abraham Lincoln, 1861 Inaugural Address
Lincoln, being a lawyer by trade, spoke of his full support, not only of the Constitution, but more directly of "the [Federal] Union," having existed since 1774, for which the Constitution was ordained. within the context of his first inaugural address and hence the start of what would become the Civil War, he believed, "the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy," that, if certain States chose to secede from their Union, they were setting legal precedence for their own future.
"Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination."
-Pres. Abraham Lincoln, 1861 Inaugural Address
he thus promised that the Union would "constitutionally defend and maintain itself," that there would be "no bloodshed or violence,...unless it be forced upon the national authority," and that "lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, [be] among the gravest of crimes." and so, while holding federal offices or property be a legal right (Phm 1.8), "there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere" (I Cor 9.12b-c). that is, he valued human lives, liberties, and pursuits of happiness above federal authority (I K 12.21-24). and that as equally among those who chose secession as among those who did not. for, if secession be not a legally recognized course of action, Lincoln still addressed North and South as one Union.
in much of his verbiage, Lincoln was softly treading the moral issues in his country from a legally unbiased point of view. at that time, two laws existed which supported either side: one banned national participation in the international slave trade, while the other required fugitive slaves to be returned to their owners, especially across state lines. i think, then, it is beautiful when he called the American people his "rightful masters."
his goal was to avoid a war, and his faith in doing so was expressed upon legal discourse, Supreme Court tribunals, and Constitutional amendments as originating with "the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others."
we know that, despite his words, a war did break out. those against the [democracy] do not use their Government-given rights to mold and direct and change that government, and so they are cause for the very thing they dislike about it. in other words, the reasons why Lincoln upheld the Constitution in its high standing was that in its perpetual existence, it should represent the middle-ground of the people's thoughts. it ought not to lean toward one side or another, but to provide equality on basic principles and be silent on specific ones. as he put it, whether Congress should prohibit or protect "slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say." for, the Constitution is not the be-all/ end-all of law, but rather the people themselves--for which it stands--are (Amendment IX).
"If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case..../ If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other."
-Pres. Abraham Lincoln, 1861 Inaugural Address
"You don't concede when there's theft involved..../ What takes courage is to do nothing..../ I actually think, though, it takes, again, more courage not to step up."
-Pres. Donald Trump, 2021 Insurrection Speech
firstly, i vastly appreciate the formality of pre-written speeches. i know, once upon a time, it was common practice for public figures to read from a script, whether written by oneself or another, and there's certainly an order from which one does not deviate, all points addressed coherently, and the whole of it succinct. now, i was not present in any form for any of Trump's speeches, but just in reading this specific transcript i must say he conveys emotion better than Lincoln's written words; a negative criticism may put it differently (II Cor 10.10). but where Lincoln was speaking defensively from the perspective of what the South would call the oppressor, Trump was claiming the side of the oppressed, potentially affording him the right to speak so passionately, so freely.
secondly, if one is assuming Trump's guilt forthright, the question might only be, according to Lincoln, whether the constitutional right having been deprived is "a vital one." Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI deny laws governing citizens' right to vote based on race/ servitude, sex, ability to pay a tax, and ages above 18, respectively. Amendment XII dictates the process of counting votes for Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections. none of these are truly applicable to the grievance Trump expressed, which instead questions the validation of votes received. that issue falls under the variable legislations at the State level (Amendment X), so it can apparently not be considered vital if left ungoverned by the U.S. Constitution.
by Lincoln's prescription, the responsibility of submission/ entertainment/ acquiescence falls to Trump's opposition, if he refuses to do so himself. this is a biblical truth (Col 3.13, Mt 5.22-24, Mt 18.15-16). if two sides are not at peace, whether on a personal level or a political one, that peace ought to be sought. this is why Jesus spoke well of peacemakers (Mt 5.9), and why Paul connected our reconciliation with God to our reconciliation among cultures (Eph 2.14-18). as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said at Brandeis University, "peace is not merely the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice."
"But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness."
-James 3.17-18
according to Lincoln's own words, not all acts of violence are insurrectionary; some are revolutionary. West
Virginia's history began as a group of Virginian counties, the majority
of whose delegates disagreed with the state's formal secession from the
Union, so in late 1861 the new state was formed, being legally annexed
and admitted in 1863. during early years, the state's stance on slavery
and its role in the War in general were staunchly middle-ground,
experiencing a sort of civil war of its own.
the battle which officially started the American Civil War took place within Southern territory, yet on federal ground. like an embassy, Fort Sumter protected Northern troops until surrender was forced from it by military bombardment. the fort became a point of war for the Union to reclaim over the following four years, as Lincoln had expressed as its constitutional right to maintain itself. it is interesting to read the initial correspondence which took place: the Southern forces first trying to negotiate surrender and evacuation and then giving due warning of the attack's commencement; and the Northern commander respectfully acquiescing, escorting the emissaries back to their boat, and saying in fond farewell, "If we never meet in this world again, God grant that we may meet in the next."
"Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people?... If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people."
-Pres. Abraham Lincoln, 1861 Inaugural Address
i do not commend the recent attack on Capitol Hill; i do not defend the lawless actions of many or the selfish ambitions of few (Ja 3.16). rather, i am stating the obvious, that there is a proper way to revolt for change. and if a militia's insurrection during the 19th century could be conducted with propriety and be cause for no loss of human life, how sad it is when we--the people--cannot do better.
"Congress
shall make no law respecting...the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-The Constitution of the United States, Amendment I
"I
know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol
building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..../ So
let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."
-Pres. Donald Trump, 2021 Insurrection Speech
i do not believe Trump's speech had any intent to start a mob bent on attacking and invading federal property, both through direct, specific phrases such as in the preceding quote, and through contextual, albeit contentious use of the word "fight" elsewhere.
i've written formerly
on the variable definitions of words, and while in Lincoln's speech(es)
the context described fighting as an act of war, in Trump's speech the
implication was far less physical. indeed, he used the word when describing
the assembly which was presently set before him. it's an act of standing
up for justice, and it's the premise for every protest, whether violent
or peaceful, every argument that has ever taken place.
-Pres. Donald Trump, 2021 Insurrection Speech
Juror 3: "I'll kill him! I'll kill him!"
Juror 8: "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?"
-12 Angry Men
"If you think you're not getting the education you deserve, fight for it."
-Mrs. Schroder, high-school chemistry
never have the words of a teacher so impacted the course of my life as those recorded previous to this sentence. in 2002, after she retired mid-year, her replacement operated under fraudulent intent--handing out exemplary grades regardless of curricular work completed, etc.--much of which my brother documented at the time in blog format. in short, some of Mrs. Schroder's students fought for [their] education that year, and said replacement was removed from his post for, among other things, holding a master's degree from a university which did not exist. i don't think i need to express that there was no violence implied by her use of the word "fight," and neither did any result.
that certain people took Trump's words beyond their intent is understandable, however. not in the sense of being acceptable, but rather that there is no surprise from its occurrence.
"All new news is old news happening to new people."
-Malcolm Muggeridge
yet, i say that as equally of his accusers as of those supposed supporters. for, it is easier to slander the words of a hated opponent than to misconstrue the words of a venerated leader. that is the beauty of those Civil-War correspondences: rival military personnel could still carry out respectable, constructive conversations, perhaps in light of Lincoln's address when he asked, "Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?"
rioters, on the other hand, need only an instigator to get them going (Acts 17.5a); afterward, human emotion is enough to sustain them (Acts 19.32). from personal experience, when i have met conflict in seeking peace (two
instances come to mind) and the opposing side refused to give comment
or to speak at all on the subject, how often my mind turned to rasher
thoughts. i cannot help but be bound by stricter morals (Lk 12.57-58)
and to believe that humans are capable of resolving issues outside of
court, but when the response to addressing a problem is hatred and
silence, i will be the first to admit that "sin is crouching at your
door" (Gen 4.7). i had pondered such crimes as destruction of the
other's property, as if to requite the mental harm i suffered in being
ignored. and for me, the intent was not to prove any point, but only to
cause equal harm. i never gave in to those specific temptations (Rom
12.17-19), but i am still guilty of having considered them (Mt
5.21-22a).
to accuse Trump of instigating violent behavior among his followers is, i believe, false. but at the same time, he is not without accountability. i do not wish to express this point lightly. i truly believe one person's evil actions cannot put another at blame. to judge Trump upon the actions of others makes no sense; instead, he should only be judged by his own actions.
"I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me."
-I Corinthians 4.3-4
"...you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check."
-James 3.1b-2
there are no perfect speakers, no perfect speeches. which elected official was never judged as an enemy of those who voted for another? a household near my own had displayed a sign which read, "he's not my president," for the duration of Trump's office. i have known others to hang the U.S. flag upside-down during other administrations. even Lincoln, who won less than 40% of the popular vote, lost half of his country to a fear that he would "interfere with the institution of slavery" in their states; and, of course, we know he was assassinated upon re-election and the gradual surrender of Southern armies. this even seems to be a theme of the bible (Acts 7.52) and Christian life (Jn 15.18-25). this is obviously not meant to imply that the Spirit stumbles in how He goes about teaching simply because not everyone listens (Acts 28.27-28), but rather that we, as humans, do not always say what we mean and mean what we say.
when i label Trump as accountable, it is only in the passive sense. i'll repeat, he made no direct call for his supporters to use violence against governmental officials or property--nor was he present alongside them as they did so. but he should realize that his position in front of literal thousands of followers comes with it a responsibility to check the reason for that followership. Jesus lost many of His followers over the course of His teachings (Jn 6.64-71), and gained His deadliest opposition (Jn 10.33) for accepting praise due to God alone (Lk 19.39-40). even angels are not so bold (Rev 22.8-9). but to [hear] the crowds cheering, "fight for Trump," and, "we love Trump," i should expect a direct rebuke.
"...the American people [are] finally standing up and saying, 'No.' This crowd is, again, a testament to it. I did no advertising. I did nothing.... Two months ago, we had a massive crowd come down to Washington. I said, 'What are they there for?' 'Sir, they're there for you.'"
-Pres. Donald Trump, 2021 Insurrection Speech
"When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, 'The gods have come down to us in human form!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.
"But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 'Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. In the past, He let all nations go their own way. Yet He has not left Himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; He provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.' Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them."
-Acts 14.11-18
those in the crowd must stand for their own actions, and those accused of its cause stand separately (II Cor 5.10). and those vindictive witnesses acknowledge their own standing (I Cor 10.12) before casting stones upon others (Jn 8.7). as Lincoln quoted Jesus in his second inaugural address, when defending the Spirit shared between the two sides of the Civil War, "let us judge not, that we be not judged."
happy birthday, abe
post-script: if anyone wishes to explore the claims behind "election fraud," you should, first, read up on the science of "residual votes." then, consider the unprecedented changes we've had to experience as a country during 2020, factoring in the issues many of us have had using the federal postal service. and lastly, look at bipartisan politics.* whereas my aim in this post is more simply focused upon refuting the allegations made against Trump by looking at his own words, i wouldn't dare delve so far into all of the relevant existing legislation in mere purpose of taking a stance on one side or the other regarding a supposed fraudulent election.
No comments:
Post a Comment