RE: http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?art...188&theme=home&loc=f

A shrewd assessment of a remarkable man. The American experience is a refinement of British political and legal systems and traditions which evolved organically over 1,000 years. That evolution, albeit imperfect as human endeavors must be, always moves in the direction of the inherent God-given dignity of each person to live in freedom so long as he does no restrict the freedom of his fellow citizens. Edmund Burke recognized this and was its champion (as he was of the colonists' quest for independence). Samuel Huntington recognized that its further refinement on this continent allowed for a system that would be embraced by peoples from throughout the world, but that it was a unique distillation of the best traditions and conventions of the West: Judeo-Christian, ancient Greek and Roman though 18th century Britain. It's greatest champions (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, G. Morris, J. Wilson, Marshall and Lincoln) embraced what originated in Magna Carta and inform us in their works as well as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Cooper Union and Gettysburg addresses.

On such fertile intellectual and actual soil of our blessed land came(and continue to stream) peoples of all faiths, nationalities and races. They may have honored or cherished their native traditions, but they took hold of this great gift of America, embraced it, loved it and sought to improve it. Ours is a tradition that allows for self-examination and self-criticism and affords the process for improvement, but always in the context of being conceived in liberty and dedicated to the idea that all men by nature are free, equal before the law and in assembly govern themselves.

As I understand Huntington he feared that the country that attracted so many different peoples ceases to be viewed as exceptional by its natives and newcomers alike. Liberty, like love, is not a divisible quality. Civil, religious, political and economic freedom are different manifestations of the same thing. What is troubling today is the ambivalence which so many seem to have toward American traditions, institutions and the best parts of our culture (and there is much good in our culture despite some serious flaws). It is critical to appreciate what we are fortunate to have and that all "values" or "traditions" are not of equal merit. It should not be too hard to understand that while Lincoln and Hitler may have sincerely believed certain things regarding their fellow man those beliefs were not morally equivalent simply because each was sincere.

The danger posed is that of losing through indifference a devotion to those eternally unalterable truths which Jefferson and Lincoln eloquently set down for us embrace and live.

Mr. Huntington also seemed to understand that while America has much to offer the world by its example, we must tread carefully in our attempts to transplant it in other lands that may be less receptive, for whatever reason, to the same types of institutions as ours. That is not to suggest that some peoples are less deserving of freedom (they do just as much as we are or our forefathers were), but that the inherent right to freedom may need to be cultivated in the soil of other cultures and traditions.

These blessings and distinctions Samuel Huntington understood and wrote about persuasively. We owe him our gratitude....we should honor him by a full-throated embrace of our blessings. May he rest in peace.


"The Barrister"

Well said. N.b. In Russell Kirk's biography of Edmund Burke, he stresses that while Burke advocated for right treatment of the colonists by the mother country, he could not go so far as to agitate for or support their independence. That radical an action would do violence to Burke's cherished value of order.

Never has political opportunism been more romanticized or obscured than when we discuss Abraham Lincoln.

You talk about liberty, Barrister, but Lincoln single-handedly did more to curtail liberty in this country than perhaps any other historical figure.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus; he turned the original intent of the Constitution on its head, taking away power from the states and placing it in the federal government (opening the door to later "liberty lovers" like Woodroow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ); he supported a "slavery forever" amendment to the Constitution. See below:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

In his first inaugural address, Abe explicitly supported this amendment.

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service....holding such a provision to be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

This sort of thing can't be explained away with historical context. Abraham Lincoln did not love liberty or the abolitionist cause. He did, however, love political ambition and was unapologetically Machiavellian about achieving his personal goals.