Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Jimmy Carter Is Still a Moron, At Least

I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter in his original incarnation. The only question is whether he's just an idiot or downright malevolent. He spent most of his term trying to make the country look like "a weak, pitiful giant." His subsequent career, however, suggested that he was more evil than stupid: the incorrigible America bashing, the repeated siding with intolerant theocracies and dictatorships and murderous terrorist groups.

Carter's most recent lunacy swings the needle back toward "just really stupid:" According to Carter, the Civil War was un-Christian:
Here's the latest outrage from Jimmy Carter, the ex-President so many Americans love to hate: He claims the Civil War - which he calls, Southern-style, "The War Between the States" - was un-Christian and could have been avoided.

The comments come in a new book, "In Lincoln's Hand: His Original Manuscripts With Commentary By Distinguished Americans." Carter comments on a passage by Lincoln in which Lincoln writes: "I am almost ready to say this is probably true - that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet."

Carter writes that he finds the Lincoln writing "very troubling." Continues Carter: "He ignores the fact that the tragic combat might have been avoided altogether, and that the leaders of both sides, overwhelmingly Christian, were violating a basic premise of their belief as followers of the Prince of Peace." He concludes: "A legitimate question for historians is how soon the blight of slavery would have been terminated peacefully in America, as in Great Britain and other civilized societies."

I discussed this a long time ago.

Thanks to LGF for the lead.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous3:43 PM

    The inane notion here -- shared by both Carter and his critics at the linked story -- is that the civil war was fought to free slaves. As you know, the civil war was fought to force the seceded states to remain in the Union. The civil war would have been fought whether they seceded to promote free trade (which they did not) or to protect slavery from northern agitators (which they did).

    In defense of Carter, the economic demise of slavery was a legitimate question that economic historians have asked and answered. They don't all agree, though the consensus does seem to be that slavery was economically viable. As a matter of political economy, I don't believe it would have been. Hinton Helper was on point. Lacy Ford, not so much.



Related Posts with Thumbnails