Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Over on Power Line, Scott Johnson draws a surprising parallel between Palin's recent 'Blood Libel' speech and Lincoln's Cooper Union Address. Here's the portion of Lincoln's address that Scott highlights:
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it. . .
Sarah Palin, simply following Abraham Lincoln's lead. What better vindication exists than that? (And what better way to make Palin-hating liberals foam at the mouth than by pointing out this fortuitous similarity?)
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Oh, Noooooos! You said Palin!
Dec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Yes, but (as Whoopi Goldberg might say), Lincoln wasn't a Republican-Republican.
May '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Obama was billed as the second coming of Lincoln (?). Maybe Palin is closer to the reincarnation instead.
And, good for Sarah Palin that she publicly defended herself against the calumnities. She's courageous.
Nov '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Thank you for putting this up. BTW, from a page on the same site, some views views of Lincoln's speaking ability:
Of his speech I will only say that it lasted three hours, and that during all that time the whole audience seemed perfectly wrapt in attention, and that in power, pathos, and eloquence, I have never heard it equalled.
--Chicago (Illinois) Press & Tribune, October 15, 1858
His whole speech was a personal attack on Douglas and Democrats. He dodged the issues before the people, and failed entirely to discuss the principles dividing the two parties. It was not marked by the "abilities of a Statesman, or the dignity of a would be Senator," and was coldly received by the small crowd present.
--Monmouth (Illinois) Review, October 15, 1858
as well as:
Lincoln's voice was, when he first began speaking, shrill, squeaking, piping, unpleasant; his general look, his form, his pose, the color of his flesh, wrinkled and dry, his sensitiveness, and his momentary diffidence, everything seemed to be against him, but he soon recovered.
--William H. Herndon letter, July 19, 1887
Nov '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
This, from the Cooper Union Address, is especially relevant:
"Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair."
Palin should have just copied that word for word.
Nov '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
The reason the Left is so upset by Palin's use of "Blood Libel" is that it is another brilliant verbal coup, akin to her use of the term "Death Panel." With two words, Sarah Palin almost single-handedly derailed Obamacare before it passed. And now, just when the Left thought it had her cornered, she has prevailed again.
After 30 months as the target of an unprecedented barrage of libel, slander and vicious personal attacks, backed by the full power of the MSM, Palin is still unbowed and fighting back.
Tell me again why this woman is unqualified to be President.
Dec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Lady K, there's this also, where Lincoln addresses the charge that Republicans are radicals out to destroy the Federal government:
"But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by 'our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;' while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers.... Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations."
Dec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
"Blood libel" also embarrasses the Left because they've been engaged in a modern blood libel against Israel for decades now, and it's recently been reaching a crescendo. To have Sarah Palin bring up the imagery of Jew-haters spreading lies to dehumanize Jews and delegitimize their peoplehood upsets them, because they now have to pretend that they can reconcile affirming the humanity of Jews against the medieval blood libel with dehumanizing the Jews of Israel.
Aug '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
This strikes me as a very sloppy analogy. Brown was a rational ideological actor with co-conspirators whereas Loughner is a schizophrenic who acted alone. Furthermore, while Lincoln may have distanced the Republican party from Brown at Cooper Union, 15 months later Union troops were singing "John Brown's Body."
Basically, John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry actually was a case of what many people initially thought the Tucson murders were for the first day or so: an act of political violence made by a particularly extreme member of a political movement. I can't believe I'm writing this, but in this particular instance, Palin has a stronger case than Lincoln -- it's equally clear that John Brown was a committed abolitionist as that Loughner was not in any way a tea partier.
[Note, in writing this I am not even remotely endorsing any kind of neo-Confederate nonsense. I've read the South Carolina declaration of secession and know what the war was about and that the good guys won. I have a strong visceral sympathy for Brown's raid even as I intellectually oppose terrorism for any cause.]
Nov '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Stuart Creque
"Blood libel" also embarrasses the Left because they've been engaged in a modern blood libel against Israel for decades now, and it's recently been reaching a crescendo. To have Sarah Palin bring up the imagery of Jew-haters spreading lies to dehumanize Jews and delegitimize their peoplehood upsets them, because they now have to pretend that they can reconcile affirming the humanity of Jews against the medieval blood libel with dehumanizing the Jews of Israel.
Oh, yes, liberals are notoriously anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and just plain anti-Semitic. They love Helen Thomas.
Tell me again why American Jews keep voting for Democrats.
Nov '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Lady Kurobara:
Good point about the verbal coup. It reminds me of when she talked about putting cracks in the glass ceiling. I normally hate that kind of talk. But I liked it when she said it. I bet the sound of the left grinding their teeth could have been heard on the moon!
Dec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Lady Kurobara
Tell me again why American Jews keep voting for Democrats. · Jan 14 at 4:46pm
Jewish immigrants to America tended to fall into two categories: religious Jews who tended to be politically conservative and secular Jews who had fallen in love with Socialism in the Old Country as a hoped-for rescuer from the Czar and his ilk. A good account of this is Comrades and Chicken Ranchers, a book about Petaluma, California. My uncle Sol is the subject of one of the chapters (they changed his name to protect the "innocent") that describes how the American Legion abducted him and a few of his fellow Communists and made them kiss the flag -- Sol refused, so they tarred and feathered him.
The funny thing is that the conservative Jews sent their kids off to college, where a lot of them became radicalized. At the same time, some of the radicals' kids went on to lose their love for radicalism and became Conservatives like David Horowitz.
Israel was founded as a Socialist nation. In 1967 it became a source of American Jewish pride. After it rejected socialism in the 1980s, many Socialist Jews in America rejected it.
Dec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
So you're saying that if Lincoln had the right to distance his Republican Party from the violent acts of John Brown, Sarah Palin has even more right to denounce those attempting to blame her and the TEA Party and the Right in general for Loughner's mass murder?
Aug '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Stuart Creque
So you're saying that if Lincoln had the right to distance his Republican Party from the violent acts of John Brown, Sarah Palin has even more right to denounce those attempting to blame her and the TEA Party and the Right in general for Loughner's mass murder? · Jan 14 at 5:07pm
Yes, exactly.
My problem with the comparison is basically that the "if" in your first sentence is doing a lot of the work. Ultimately I don't think 1859 Republicans/abolitionists were responsible for Brown's political violence, but there were strong ideological and financial ties between Brown and some organized abolitionists (eg, William Lloyd Garrison) and there's definitely the fact that 1861 Republicans sympathized after the fact. In contrast, 2011 Republicans bear absolutely no responsibility for, had no connections to, and have not expressed any sympathy after the fact for this despicable lunatic.
Edited on January 15, 2011 at 2:19amDec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
anon_academic, are you familiar with The Darl Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America by Richard Ellis? I recommend it highly, and it discusses how idealistic egalitarian movements like the Abolitionists easily fall prey to violent and authoritarian impulses.
Aug '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
stuart,
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that particular work but I am with the general tendencies you're describing. I have a serious backlog of reading right now but I made a note of it, thanks for the tip.
Jul '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Some, rarely talented, people have a knack for cutting through rhetorical clutter and forcing us to readjust our thinking. Lincoln was the master. Palin is an idiot savant in that regard (no insult intended). She has a remarkable ability to slice through conventional wisdom with a few simple words and rearrange how we think about things. That is her appeal, and it is why she engenders such hostility by the left.
Dec '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
anon_academic: how would you rate the other passages of the Cooper Union address that Lady K and I cited as modern parallels? Do they hold up as good analogies?
Aug '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
stuart,
Lady K's passage is very good but in this particular context suffers the same problems i already articulated.
Your passage is also well selected as Lincoln appreciation (always a good thing), but I don't think it's particularly effective/relevant rhetoric in terms of the broad thrust of present political debate in general or the hatemonger libel in particular, though it's actually well-suited to smart alecky left comments about the repeal amendment, reading the constitution from the floor, etc.
Nov '10
Re: Palin's 'Blood Libel' Speech Vindicated by Abe Lincoln
Stuart Creque
Lady Kurobara
Tell me again why American Jews keep voting for Democrats. · Jan 14 at 4:46pm
Jewish immigrants to America tended to fall into two categories: religious Jews who tended to be politically conservative and secular Jews who had fallen in love with Socialism in the Old Country as a hoped-for rescuer from the Czar and his ilk. A good account of this is Comrades and Chicken Ranchers, a book about Petaluma, California.
The funny thing is that the conservative Jews sent their kids off to college, where a lot of them became radicalized. At the same time, some of the radicals' kids went on to lose their love for radicalism and became Conservatives like David Horowitz.
Israel was founded as a Socialist nation. In 1967 it became a source of American Jewish pride. After it rejected socialism in the 1980s, many Socialist Jews in America rejected it.
Thank you, Stuart. You are right on the ball. Your comments are always helpful and insightful.