May 26, 2003

  • Memorial Monday


    Summer begins today.  Oh, I know, it's not summer by the cosmological calendar until solstice on June 21, but for those of us who live by the seasons of beaurocracy, today's the day.  American's observe Memorial Day by firing upthe grill, getting outside for our first summer weekend and with speeches in cemeteries honoring the soldiers who fought and died in service to our nation.


    Interesting to me is that the holiday began after the Civil War and the first observances made a point of honoring both the Federal and the Rebel fallen.  When I began to read accounts of the Civil War, one of the most striking aspects of the story viewed through the letters, journals and reports of the men and women who lived through it is the way that each side regarded the other.  In the climate of 2003 where the leaders of our nation use language to paint a picture of evil personified when speaking of our enemies, it is disconcerting to read the words of Abraham Lincoln, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Ulysses Grant.  They describe each other in terms that make it clear they each had a high regard for their opposing counterpart.  They almost sound like friends.


    At the first public occasion of celebration after the end of the Civil War, Lincoln requested that the band play Dixie in honor of the men who fought to a bitter end for the other side.  I can't imagine our current President requesting that our current enemies be honored in this climate.  I'm ashamed when I hear people villified for expressing their opposition to administration policies.  The Great Liberator, Lincoln, invited his critics to the White House and heard them out, sometimes even moderating his policies and plans based on their arguments.  Today I hear people saying that those who speak out against war are commiting treasonous acts of aiding and comforting our enemies. 


    Maybe we need to stop and consider who and what our enemies are.  Lincoln said that the struggle of the Civil War was a test of the proposition that Liberty and Equality could provide a stable and enduring foundation.  When I see our lawmakers reducing liberty with their so-called Patriot Act, or using draconian measures which they euphemistically title Homeland Security, I wonder what Lincoln would think about their decisions.  


    For almost two years we have imprisoned without trial, legal representation or POW status hundreds of men captured in the war we waged against Al Quaida in Afghanistan.  In the recent attempt to persuade the Supreme Court to hear arguments that these men should at least be given access to attorney's for representation to the courts, the key argument offered by our government in defense of the continued denial of this Constitutional right was that these men were captured in civilian clothes.  Since they didn't have uniforms they aren't officially soldiers, they aren't officially prisoners of war.  When I heard that the Supreme Court Justices accepted this and refused to hear the case, I was ashamed. 


    If those men aren't "soldiers" what are they?  As soldiers the Geneva Conventions would establish their rights to due process and representation.  As civilians, our own Constitution demands that they be given due process and representation.  Legally, they must be one or the other.  How can we claim to be upholding Liberty, and the proposition that "all men are created equal" while we treat even one man as less than a man?


    On this Memorial Day, I hope that we will remember.  I hope that we will all stop and think about what it means to practice liberty and justice for all.  I hope that we will not dishonor the spilled blood Lincoln spoke of.  He challenged us to rise and consecrate ourselves in the task of advancing the cause for which they died... "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."  

Comments (16)

  • very well said.

  • Excellent post.  I think it's easy to forget how and why Abe was considered to be a "great" president after the fact, as his was a deeply divided constituancy.  Why was he a great president and why was he hated by many? Because he didn't support necessarily one political party, but rather what was morally right for the country, and folks do get their panties in a wad when their morals aren't represented properly.  Maybe some would say that Abe was representing all of America, so that's why he was so respectful toward one group of people within that same country, but I think if the president of the US doesn't recognize how much power he represents to all of the world, then he's deeply underestimating his role of leader.  He doesn't just represent Americans, but as he proved the US would fight against "injustices" everywhere--then if he would fight for injustices, why doesn't he and this administration recognize that indeed he must fight for justice everywhere?

  • You have brought up some very good points...

  • Happy Memorial Day! I couldn't agree more!

  • I'm uneasy with this comparison.  The American Civil War and current war on terrorism are two very different creatures.  Our current President has made it clear that we do not have a problem with Muslims or with the people of the countries we will oppose in the fight against terrorism.  However, we DO have a problem with terrorists. 

    I have no doubt that Lincoln would protect and defend our nation just as it is being protected and defended today.  But I do think he'd enjoy reading your blogs.

  • I love that comparison!!! I recently bought a bio on Lincoln and haven't had a chance to read it yet - and I also wonder what he would have thought... I could go political but I won't. It isn't the right post to do so.. I hope you have a safe and enjoyable day

  • While I agree with you about the tenor of the current political leadership in this country, don't forget that Abraham Lincoln suspended the contitutionally-protected writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War, then basically thumbed his nose when the Supreme Court admonished him for this.  The difference is that he was a leader who was looking far past the next election.  These days our leaders are looking only toward next week's opinion polls...

    What chills me to the bone is how ham-handed the tactics are in silencing any and all critics of the current political orthodoxy.  Joseph McCarthy was a rank amateur (and Richard Nixon a rookie-league player) in comparison with these people...  Land of the Free?  not hardly...

  • The reason I say this (after re-reading your final quote from the Gettysburg Address) is because I think political orthodoxy is easy in these times, when we have become a nation of sheep, for all intents and purposes, and the shepherd isn't leading us back into our fold, but into his.

  • Great blog. I like what you said. And you know - it is still true for the political environment outside the war. THey are forever insulting and ridiculing each other. It seems as if good manners is the first casualty of politics.

  • On this one, I see it similarly to SisterCTR in that, the times and political climates are so different, but especially the causes for the 2 wars mentioned.  I believe Lincoln would defend and not be as gracious to the terrorists after the things that have happened so recently and the threats we have had since.  I feel pretty sure we, as the public at large, have heard only a slight smattering of the actual threats (since the government has such a distaste for causing panic).  So, although I don't like our present day politics and the unkind way all parties go for the throat, I feel the Al Queda are being dealt with fairly.  Had they not been playing by rules outside those that we, and other nations at war, are expected to live by (being out of uniform and not identified as soldiers) they may be due the rights of prisoners of war.  I don't have the facts yet about citizens, I just don't think they ARE since they were here as foreign nationalists with intent to do harm to the U.S.

    Crap... this one is out of hand.  sorry... I quit.

    hugs to you,

                 Deb

  • P.S.  Summer is great and you can jump in early if you like!   I am not sure the face in my above comment is the right one.  I just meant to stick out my tongue... lol

    Deb (again)

  • You're absolutely right on.  Atrocities happen in all ages (terrorism surely occured then; it wasn't the same scale though) but only by playing by the rules can we move forward toward truly civilized society.  We have not been playing by the rules.

  • Here's me with a total agreement face.  In Lincoln's time, what defined a man and a leader are completely different than what they are now.  Things called manners and respect did not fall by the wayside.  We could only hope in this digital society that values and integrity in the leadership do not go the way of the dinosaur.

  • Well written but it seems like apples and oranges to me.  While you have legitimate questions about the "POWS", Lincoln's gestures were towards fellow Americans, mostly blood relatives and neighbors, and forgiveness was necessary to re-establish unity in our nation.  As for disagreement with the government, those who disagree passionately can't complain against those who would then disagree with them with the same passion or they'd have to accept the label of hypocrite.  o/

    God Bless - Dale

  • I'm trying to understand the apples and oranges theory?  I believe what she's trying to say here, what I understood, is that it doesn't matter if it's your own countrymen--we are all people of the world, and everybody deserves equal treatment and justice.  To say that only our blood relatives would deserve justice is to demean the purpose of fighting for truth and justice.  I'm trying to figure out what direction that "label of hypocrite" should be pointing in.

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment