The Ten Greatest Heroes of American History
That so few now dare to be eccentric marks the chief danger of the time –John Stuart Mill
To balance out the ten worst monsters list, I offer my top ten American heroes. There have been many more monsters than heroes, so compiling this list has been a bit more work.
My criteria are the same as the monster’s list, only the inverse. Which men have had the most influence in promoting American Christianity, liberty, liberal education, and the agrarian way of life? A few on the list are not Christians and one in particular often attacked the Christian religion. But the positive qualities of the few non-Christian were so good I have included them anyway. One thing all share in common is that their lives were testaments to they freedoms they fought for. Most were eccentrics and champions of lost causes.
(10) Andrew Jackson (1767–1845). Soldier, President, destroyer of the Second National Bank. Jackson fought in 103 duels, mainly over his wife’s honor, was taken captive in the War of Independence and refused to shine the boots of the British officers, held an open House at the White House after his inauguration.
(9) Robert L. Dabney (1820–1898). Presbyterian theologian, “Stonewall” Jackson’s chief of staff and biographer, defender of Virginia’s secession from the federal union.
(8) Nathan Bedford Forrest (1821–1877). Confederate general who never lost a battle he commanded, founder of KKK (to protect the rights of southerners, especially the womenfolk), dissolver of KKK when infiltrated by muckrakers and feds. Fearless and innovative on the battlefield, a gentlemen off.
(7) H. L. Mencken (1880–1956). Libertarian essayist, cigar smoker, author of The American Language. Mencken loved freedom, hated the federalist system, and exposed hypocrisy in its many forms.
(6) Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826). Statesman, agrarian, author of Declaration of Independence, founder of University of Virginia, drafter of the Kentucky Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
(5) Robert E. Lee. (1807–1870). Confederate general and man of honor, courage and faith. His ancestral home in Arlington was turned into a cemetery by Lincoln’s cronies.
(4) J. Gresham Machen (1881–1937). Presbyterian minister, main enemy of the modernists, opponent of compulsory education, founder of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
(3) George Washington (1732–1799). Farmer, Commander-in-Chief of American Army during War for Independence, first President.
(2) John C. Calhoun (1782–1850). Southern statesman, advocate of state’s rights and nullification, father of southern secessionist movement though he died before seeing his dream realized.
(1) Patrick Henry (1736–1799). Presbyterian statesman and patriot who preferred death to slavery. Critic of the Constitutional Convention of which he said he smelled a rat.
(10) Andrew Jackson was responsible for the infamous Trail of Tears incident. Additionally, Andrew Jackson threatened to hang John C. Calhoun (#2), his own former vice president, if South Carolina seceded. Leave this Jackson off, put on Stonewall.
(5) Robert E. Lee lived at Arlington, but it was in fact his wife’s house, built by her, father George Washington Parke Custis. A great hero (should be #1 for moral/Christian qualities if nothing else).
Comment by ElizaF — April 4, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
ElizaF-
Yes, Stonewall was close. And, yes, AJ was naughty on a few occasions. His federalism is difficult to look past (although his form of federalism was quite different from Hamilton’s). But because his destruction of the Bank was such a great feat and because he is so hated by state-worshipers and corporate fascists, I could not pass him up.
Comment by MRB — April 4, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
“Patrick Henry (1736–1799). Presbyterian statesman and patriot who preferred death to slavery. Critic of the Constitutional Convention of which he said he smelled a rat.”
Yes!
Comment by JonathanB — April 4, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Since the ascendancy of the Republicans, only Machen and Mencken. That’s 150 years! And indeed, I can’t think of anyone else in that period even to nominate for consideration.
Comment by Tim H — April 5, 2007 @ 10:15 am
Do you defend N.B. Forrest the slave trader, who wanted “keep niggers in their place” after the Civil War, or N.B. Forrest the military leader?
Comment by Keith — April 5, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Keith — your ignorance is showing again. Start with the Jack Hurst biography — it’s on tape from Blackstone if you don’t have time to actually read.
If your idea of history, philosophy, and theology is to repeat all the cliches of our society like so many mantras, then you will be happier somewhere else — at Andrew Sandlin’s blog, for example.
Pretty soon, we’re going to have to start charging you for all these free lessons.
Comment by Tim H — April 5, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
I think John Calvin Coolidge is worth a place on your Heroes list, esp. since he went against the tide and was pretty much a throwback to an earlier era. Though technically a New England Yankee, he had none of the unpleasant and downright repulsive qualities of most Yankees. He was practically an agrarian (check his family background).
It seems strange to me that the Machen family should have been friends with the Woodrow Wilsons. Coolidge would have proved better, though laconic, company.
Comment by ElizaF — April 5, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Speaking of cliche, Tim, why don’t you respond to me with something other than appeals to authority for once. Furthermore, N.B. Forrest was slave trader who’s racial comments are well-documented. Are you seriously disputing this? All I’m asking is whether you defend this “side” of the man.
Comment by Keith — April 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Keith — an appeal to authority is neither cliche nor a fallacy if done properly. The point is, you (obviously) need to acquire a vast amount of “facticity” before your historical opinions will be worth interacting with. You misconstrue this “side” of Forrest, therefore you are far from being able to interact with a “defense” thereof.
But here, I’ll bite. Please give me a citation documenting your quote in comment #5.
Comment by Tim H — April 5, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
I think we’re going to have to wait awhile to see the quote in #5 documented. A very long time indeed. Meanwhile…
Eliza– Coolidge is largely a blank spot in my knowledge of presidents. I’ll add him to my reading list. Possibly, we should look into Grover Cleveland as well.
I wdn’t want to trivialize Jackson’s serious flaws with the term “naughty.” And I tend to agree that Stonewall should edge him out of the top ten. I think MB’s point is that destroying the central bank was so important and difficult that we can overlook much else in comparison. Also, can we hypothesize that some of his bluster was for effect? After all, if I recall correctly, S.C. got the tariff of abomination drastically lowered as a result of their stand, despite Jackson’s fuming — cd the fuming have been merely tactical? I don’t know.
Comment by Tim H — April 6, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
There are at least two votes for replacing AJ with Stonewall. As much as I love the latter (I named one of my sons after him) I still think AJ has had the greater impact. Think about how much damage the Fed has done to the country and then think how much of this damage was put off for 100 years because of AJ’s action.
It is worth noting that all the heroes on the list are Southerners. The following states are represented.
Virginia: 5
Maryland: 2
South Carolina: 2
Tennessee: 1
These are the states in which they were born and spent most of there careers. The only exceptions are Machen, who spent much of his life in Princeton and Philadelphia and Jackson who spent most of his adult life in Tennessee.
Their ancestry is also interesting, although not surprising. Six of the ten are full or part Scots.
Scots-Irish: 3 (Jackson, Forrest, Calhoun)
English: 3 (Washington, Dabney, Machen)
(Dabney may have Huguenot ancestry, in which case his surname would originally have been d’Aubigne)
Scottish: 1 (Henry)
German: 1 (Mencken)
English and Scottish: 1 (Lee)
(Lee is said to be a descendant of Robert the Bruce)
Welsh, English, Scottish: 1 (Jefferson)
Comment by MRB — April 6, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Tim, I agree that everyone appeals to an authority. I went ahead and accused you of an appeal to authority to see if you’d remain consistent with your criticism of my appeal to authority in the “Monsters” post.
I would not mind providing documentation, but I’m still deeply curious as to whether you seriously dispute N.B. Forrest’s occupation as a slave trader.
I might as well also ask, do you and Michael refer to yourselves as kinists? Mr. Butler went out of his way to point out the Southern and Western-European roots of his heroes… that’s saying something.
Comment by Keith — April 8, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Besides what I already said about appeals to authority, it’s absurd to say that’s what I’m doing since I have not even given a thesis in support of which one might appeal to authority.
Yes: Forrest was a slave-trader for a time before the war.
That simple fact is not what you asked to confirm in post #5.
Comment by Tim H — April 8, 2007 @ 12:44 am
Keith -
Labels play a fundamental role in the way you approach an issue. This is also true of everyone who has imbibed the propaganda of statist education.
There is a place for labels or stereotypes (I plan to write a post on stereotypes in the next few months), but one major pitfall of labels is that they are often used as surrogates for serious thought and argument.
You ask whether we refer to ourselves as “kinists.” I can’t speak for Tim, but my answer is no. And is it “no” not because I would be embarrassed to be labeled a kinist, but because such a label does no philosophical or theological work. To deny the importance of race is on the level of denying the importance of having a gender. But once one admits this obvious fact (a fact that the Bible itself places significant stress upon) does not imply any particular racial theory. And it certainly does not put one on the road to racial supremacy (a Judaic concept, not a Christian one) let alone racial hatred.
One can honor and cherish his heritage without at the same time hating or despising those of alien heritage. Indeed, it is because I honor my forefathers that I can understand why those of a different heritage honor theirs.
Keith, like everybody else who has been processed by statist propaganda, you need to break free from the false dilemmas that the Cryptocracy hoists upon its victims. Blake called them mind-forged manacles. Breath the fresh air, my friend. Dare to go beyond the clichés of “correct” thought. When you do this, life becomes at once more serious and more dangerous. But it also becomes more realistic and more Christian.
You are a smart young man. Your chief danger lies in conforming your thoughts to human opinion. Bertrand Russell’s pious grandmother inscribed in the flyleaf of the Bible she gave him, “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil” (Ex. 23:2). I can think of no better advice to give you.
Comment by MRB — April 8, 2007 @ 4:13 am
The hasty reader might think you are implying that kinism entails “racial hatred,” but that is certainly not true.
In becoming kinists, honkies join the rest of the world — all of which is already kinist, honkydom being the only exception.
I’m fine with being called a kinist — as long as I get to define it.
Or conversely, you can define a concept (and give it a label if you want) — then ask me if I affirm that concept.
Keith, the same comment goes for all the other pigeon-holes you like to stick people into and then draw deductions — post-milleniallism, theonomy, and so forth.
I have far more in common with Westminster Seminary theology than with the theology of some that call themselves “theonomists.”
But some at Westminster think of me as a “theonomist” — though they never asked if that is the case, or define what it means.
The right wing there is more guilty of this than the left.
That’s why I forgive you, Keith. We are living in an age of the cliché, the pigeon-hole, the thought-less black-out. At least you have the excuse of extreme youth.
Comment by Tim H — April 9, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Tim,
While we are living in the age of “pigeon-hole” I would say this is due to the myriad of beliefs out there which force us to attempt categorization more loosely so that we can still think in some organized fashion about the myriads of systems out there. Especially since so many dolts don’t think deeply enough about their own system to be consistent. This is more the age of “messy-worldviews” than “pigeon-hole.”
Comment by JonathanB — April 9, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
You want me to confirm that N.B. said that “niggers should be kept in their place?” I found that quote on the Wikipedia entry for Forrest. What more do you want?
I also read that Forrest later changed his ways, possible even renunciating his racism. He was the first white to speak at a NAACP convention.
I should also mention that my family and I, although being West Virginians, are very fond of Southern generals (like Lee) who were truly great men of God. When visiting Washington and Lee University we even visited Traveller’s grave.
I have also heard that Lee and Stonewall were staunchly anti-slavery and believed that slavery would eventually die out in the South even if the secession was successful.
That being said, I have a lot of respect for the South. I would not consider myself brainwashed by the public schools, either. The Confederacy is always viewed as wrong but not necessarily evil. Still, I open to the possibility that the South was not wrong.
Lincoln was definitely wrong. He said, “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,” and yet that address is one of the most famous speeches in history. What a liar.
Continuing on with your comments, Mr. Butler, I agree with your assessment of race and heritage. (Although I’d say that evolution had the most significant effect on the concept of racial supremacy in the 20th century.)
All that being said, have I seriously given the impression that I am enslaved by mind-forged manacles?
I wish you could have seen me in my AP Government and AP English classes. I would write essays lambasting democracy and upholding the constitutional republic. I attributed 9/11 to God’s judgment (like Jesus and the Tower of Siloam, not Falwell and the gays). I wrote a research paper on the commonalities between Origin of Species, The Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf. And I started heated debates with my teacher and peers after watching “Inherit the Wind” in class. I was a thorn in the side of statist propaganda, if nothing else. I was notorious for being a thinking Christian and I believe I represented my Lord well in this regard.
At Cedarville we are mostly Republican (with the occasional Libertarian) and dispensational, but I’m always the first to critique or mock that fact. On a positive note, Cedarville does a tremendous amount with worldview analysis and apologetics in Bible classes as well as chapel, so I’d say I’m well trained. CU has even hosted Worldview Weekend, which features apologists like Sean McDowell. I also bought and read a book on worldviews called “Understanding the Times,” which was written by David Noebel. He also co-wrote a book called “Mind Siege” with the great theologian Tim LaHaye.
Finally, I would say that this site has changed my opinion on a lot of issues, as well as challenged my thinking in many areas. And I am thankful for that, as well as interaction with the apologist I would consider third in line from Van Til. :)
Not brain-washed,
Keith
Comment by Keith — April 10, 2007 @ 12:10 am
Keith -
On the Forrest quote.
(1) Be careful about citing Wikipedia. Even the section you quote from is headed with a warning: “This section does not cite its references or sources.” And notice that the article does contain a footnote number after the quotation, but there is no citation given that corresponds with the number.
(2) I did some googling and it appears that the quote does have a source. It is supposedly found in Stanley F. Horn, Invisible Empire: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan, 1866-1871, (Patterson Smith Publishing Corporation: Montclair, NJ, 1939). Horn is apparently passing along an oral report about a conversation Forrest had with George Gordon in order to cast doubt on its reliability. Somebody needs to track the book down and report back.
(3) My assertion about Forrest being in the KKK was overstated. Forrest was elected Grand Wizard in absentia and it appears that there is little if any evidence that he ever actually led or rode with the Klan.
(4) Forrest himself seems to have on at least two occasions denied he was a member of the Klan. Once before a Congressional committee (Reports of Committees, House of Representatives, 2nd Session, 42nd Congress) and once in an interview (Cincinnati Commercial, August 28, 1868). Both of these need to be confirmed.
(5) If (4) can be corroborated, it is easily reconciled with his being elected as Grand Wizard. The men who did it wanted to honor Forrest and Forrest, in gratitude, did not publicly reject the title. Moreover, since Forrest was in agreement with what the Klan was doing, there would be no reason for him to distance himself from them.
(6) Whether Forrest was a member of the Klan or not makes no difference to me. The original Klan had an honorable purpose and it is no disgrace to be affiliated with it.
(7) As for the quotation, it is most likely spurious. But on the small chance that it is genuine, it must be understood in the context of Forrest’s character and his sitz im leben. And more than this, to attempt to besmirch Forrest on the basis of one thing he may have said about negroes is a cheap shot. It is aimed at drawing a visceral reaction from pc-types.
(8) The following articles are worth consulting:
Article that cites Congressional record (Skip the first two paragraphs)
Article that argues Forrest was not a Klansman
Transcript of interview with Forrest (Needs to be verified.)
Comment by MRB — April 10, 2007 @ 3:16 am
Keith -
We’ll all of us are at least somewhat brain-washed. About twelve years ago, I was about where you are now. So there is time.
As for 9-11, your comment deals with the Primary Cause. But until we understand the secondary cause, we should refrain from speculating on the ways of God in history.
I haven’t said much about 9-11 at First Word. The typical reformed and evangelical Christian is so politically deluded that he believes the W is a Christian brother and that he is God’s humble servant striving to bring righteousness to the nation and the world. So why bother questioning the official 9-11 line with people like this?
But since you mentioned it, the official 9-11 story is full of lies, absurdities and physical impossibilities. This 20 minute video goes over a few of the grosser problems with the story. There is more to it than this, but it is a good place to start.
Comment by MRB — April 10, 2007 @ 3:46 am
Thank you for your research. I had previously googled the quote and found the same information.
I would have to investigate the original intent of the Klan more before I agreed with 6. I agree that they weren’t all bloodthirsty lynchers, but still the “guilt by association” is so strong that its difficult to defend the KKK.
The paper I wrote on 9/11 was in the same vein as Christ commenting on the catastrophe at Siloam: “Unless you repent, you likewise will perish.” I didn’t speculate about its cause, as Jerry Falwell did when he blamed the attacks on the increasing tolerance of homosexuals.
I have studied the 9/11 conspiracy theories quite a bit, actually. (As soon as I witnessed your vitriolic dislike towards Bush I assumed that you would be in that camp.) I’ve also analyzed the fall of the towers themselves from an engineering standpoint. Overall, I think the conspirators pull out a lot interesting curios but ultimately fail to answer several extremely crucial questions.
Bombs didn’t bring down the towers. Thermal expansion caused by millions of joules of jet fuel did.
Comment by Keith — April 10, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Keith -
My vitriol against Bush has little to do with 9-11. He lacks the imagination and courage to have been deeply involved in such a feat.
I shall have to write a post on the most glaring problems with the official account. I don’t want to do it here since the comments will get buried.
I will say that jet fuel did not cause Towers 1 and 2 to collapse. There were firemen on the 78th floor of the South Tower who reported that a couple of hoses could knock out the flames. And even if the joists were compromised (the official story), this would not have caused the 47 central beams to fall to pieces. If the building “pancaked” the central core would have stood in place. Furthermore, the towers fell at freefall speeds, showing there was no resistence. This could only be accomplished if the beams were blown.
And since no airplane hit Tower 7 (a 47 story steel-frame building), how did jet fuel compromise them? It is little wonder that the NIST Report failed to mention this building.
The man who signed a 99 year lease just two months before 9-11 said that the buiding was “pulled.” Numerous other official are on record saying the building was demolished. But why would they do that? And how did they get the explosives in there in a few hours. Even more strange is that BBC and another news agency (I forget which) reported that the building collapsed at least 15 minutes before it actually did.
This is only the tip of the iceburg. The official story is absurd from beginning to end.
Regarding the Klan, you must distinguish the various incarnations of it. The original Klan was honorable. The later ones were often been filled with trouble-makers … but even even these performed some good deeds. Since about the 60’s the Klan has been infiltrated by moles and race-baiters. As such, it serves the Feds, the Judaic SPLC, and the ADL well.
Comment by MRB — April 10, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Gentlemen, please post further comments (if any) on the Eleven at their proper place, which is here.
Comment by Tim H — April 10, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Continuing MB’s observations in post #18:
I too doubt the genuineness of the quote. It doesn’t “ring true” if you’ve read a biography or three on the man. And the wikipedia article is horrible in several ways. Let this be a friendly warning to all our readers that may be tempted to lean on Wikipedia: it is fine for getting a names-dates-places preliminary orientation; but the message is seriously distorted due to coming from the prevailing anti-Christianity that most writers on history there (at least all the subjects I have checked) seem to have imbibed. You need to read books before formulating opionions.
“Books, Jerry. They read books.”
When Forrest was challenged by the establishment in his own day for persecuting Negroes, he pointed out the absurdity of that thesis: his activities were aimed against the white Republican occupiers, not the local Negroes.
However, enfranchising the latter was part of the Republican plan of conquest (though their home states back north were doing everything in their power to make sure the same didn’t happen there, of course).
9. It was wrong for the Republicans to impose the enfranchisement of an entire class of former slaves that had no parity with the surrounding culture in education, literacy, knowledge of history and traditions, or desire to further those traditions.
10. Therefore, it was not wrong to oppose the enfranchisement of that class. Indeed, it was the duty of southerners to do so.
11. The term nigger was used north and south by white and black. It was not surrounded with the linguistic baggage and overlayed connotations of our day.
12. Calvinism teaches that everyone should know his place and keep it. Therefore, so should “niggers.” So the desire of the quote is not even incorrect per se. If the sentiment can be criticized, it would be in terms of a nest of categories (proper office, jurisdiction, etc.) that go far beyond the mental capacity of those that fling quotes like that around.
13. (which, as said before, probably isn’t even a quote)
Comment by Tim H — April 11, 2007 @ 9:22 am
Regarding Wikipedia use, it’s amazing the amount of vandalism users consciously commit on articles published there. Sometimes a teacher will recommend a particular Wikipedia article as a starting point for research and one of the students with a nasty sense of humor and a Wikipedia account will copy and paste random information entirely unrelated to the topic at hand into the article. Other times, they simply delete the external links the teacher wanted the students to access.
Anything for a “laugh”, and it’s hard to track down who the perp is.
Trust me. I’ve seen this many times. Do serious research on non-editable sites, or from books.
God bless,
Laurel
Comment by Laurel — April 11, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Calvinism teaches that everyone should know his place and keep it. Therefore, so should “niggers.”
What?!
Comment by Keith — April 12, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
Quoting you Keith, quoting you.
At this point it perhaps behooves us to step back and explain one of our methods to our readership. As everyone can see, we have pretty much picked apart Keith’s blurt in comment #5 from a half-dozen different angles. And much more could be said as well! (We haven’t even touched on the slavery question, for example.)
A whole post, or series of posts, should probably be dedicated to explaining the method I will call exposing the enthymeme. Most rhetoric in our age is of the nature of #5 (”are you defending that slave-trader?”). It is known as an enthymematic argument, i.e. one in which some premises are not stated because supposedly obvious (e.g. “of course anyone that would do that is wicked.”) Usually, this will itself actually be the last in a whole chain of other missing premises that also need to be dragged out into the light, analyzed and undone.
In short, the rhetoric of our age is deeply embedded in a whole worldview that is biblically perverse. Even the maxims and commonplaces of such a culture are perverse. Contradicting the mere point of fact is not going to be enough for a while. It’s going to take a great deal of time and patience to extract all the venom.
Unfortunately, the same technique needs to be applied to unravel the “arguments” of many Christian leaders of our day — especially those that are self-designated as “cultural leaders” occupying imaginary “centers” etc.
Comment by Tim H — April 13, 2007 @ 8:06 am
As everyone can see, we have pretty much picked apart Keith’s blurt in comment #5 from a half-dozen different angles.
Except if you read the comments, almost none of them were about N.B. Forrest at all. It wasn’t until comment 18 that anything was actually addressed… and I agree with most everything Mr. Butler said. You might it sound like I came in here with my neo-con guns blazing only to get mowed down with two machine guns named Truth and Logic.
And then you present still more rhetoric that never actually addresses the point of concern. I wanted to know why Calvinism teaches that “everyone should know his place and keep it.”
Every argument is enthymematic, by the way, unless you have some criteria by which you would determine which premises need to be “dragged out into the light, analyzed and undone.”
Comment by Keith — April 13, 2007 @ 10:51 am
As everyone can see, we have pretty much picked apart Keith’s blurt in comment #5 from a half-dozen different angles.
Except if you read the comments, almost none of them were about N.B. Forrest at all. It wasn’t until comment 18 that anything was actually addressed… and I agree with most everything Mr. Butler said. You make it sound like I came in here with my neo-con guns blazing only to get mowed down with two machine guns named Truth and Logic.
And then you present still more rhetoric that never actually addresses the point of concern. I wanted to know why Calvinism teaches that “everyone should know his place and keep it.”
Every argument is enthymematic, by the way, unless you have some criteria by which you would determine which premises need to be “dragged out into the light, analyzed and undone.”
Comment by Keith — April 13, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Oh sorry, Keith, I didn’t know that’s what you were asking.
Calvinism teaches that “everyone should know his place and keep it” because that’s what the Bible teaches.
Comment by Tim H — April 13, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Oh, and we do have “some criteria by which you would determine which premises need to be ‘dragged out into the light, analyzed and undone.’”
The criterion is: those premises which are out of accord with the biblical worldview.
Comment by Tim H — April 13, 2007 @ 11:15 am
TH,
Could elaborate on #29 a little more. I don’t know that I disagree, but I’m not sure exactly what you’re driving at as to the biblical teaching in this regard.
Comment by GV — April 13, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
GV — it’s not really rocket science. It’s just one way to summarize a nest of themes: contentment, finding and sticking to a calling, not grasping prerogatives that don’t belong to one, etc. This is really the practical side of Christianity, but I called it Calvinism since these themes come out with particular clarity and plausibility in Calvin’s expositions.
Comment by Tim H — April 13, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
I just wasn’t exactly sure what you meant. I wouldn’t have described contentment with God’s providence and calling as “knowing one’s place, and keeping it,” but that’s why I asked; I wanted to know what you meant.
Comment by GV — April 13, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
To the extent that “knowing one’s place, and keeping it,” is a Christian notion, it is grounded chiefly in the 5th commandment with its obligations to be in submission to parents, elders, the magistrate, etc. In the words of the Westminster divines, it is a matter of right relations among “superiors, inferiors, and equals.” This is consistent with Calvin’s preaching on Deuteronomy, and, less directly, in his emphasis on providence.
As for this north vs. south topic, I find it tedious , irrelevant, and a little creepy.
Can the advocates of the Old South currently recognize God’s providence in the defeat of the South and submit to it now? As in, move on, turn the page?
Comment by mkm — April 13, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
MKM — it’s odd you should say so; neither the post nor most of the comments say anything about north vs south. In fact, the only place I find it mentioned is comment #11 (w/an echo in #17).
Just think of the 10 heroes as vanilla Americans if you prefer.
Comment by Tim H — April 14, 2007 @ 7:54 am
GV — I meant no insult. All I meant was that I was not tilting at something very subtle. Probably my terminology does need some straightening out here.
Comment by Tim H — April 14, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
OK thanks. Sorry I came across so brusque…
Comment by Keith — April 14, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
“Calvinism teaches that everyone should know his place and keep it.”
This frame of reference implies that changing one’s status implies ultimate discontentment. We may as well use it to justify the avoidance of natural means to improve one’s health, for fear of mocking God’s “providence”.
One may hope to glorify God and enjoy him forever by climbing from oppression to liberation, iff. this is done in a manner that is just, humble, unassuming, et cetera.
The argument for social stasis/conservatism overlooks exceptions to a rule of (dare I say?) covenantal blessings/curses which occur via moments when the son is not punished for the sins of the father.
It also overlooks the flow of history as recorded in holy Writ and elsewhere.
But I know this is a diversion from the 11 greatest heroes. In a sense, however, it is not. There are some heroes whose position in the world was in jeopardy–if Robert E. Lee looked to his father he would have many grounds for pessimism, but he still strove for consistency. Likewise, all being sons of Adam, we have nobility. Further, being in the line of the second Adam is even more grounds for celebration and growth.
That this should be unfettered and unchecked by the limits of reality is, as I said before, a foolish polar opposite. Perhaps you are responding to this Romantic notion by going overboard. Or perhaps I got it wrong when you espoused stasis–if this is a general rule, then I agree fully.
JAD
Comment by JAD — April 15, 2007 @ 8:24 am
JAD — good comments. The problem is that the discussion is taking off on an elaboration of a one-liner which was in response to another one-liner. My main burden right now is to have shown that that one particular truism of our current discourse is false and shabby. Really doing the job properly requires making new distinctions, clarifying nuances, and producing the better way to ask the question. Taking a stab at all that probably needs to wait for a whole thread sometime in the future.
Comment by Tim H — April 16, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
From Robert E. Lee (#5):
“The consolidatioin of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded.” (explaining the War Between the States in a letter to Lord Acton in 1866)
Comment by ElizaF — June 7, 2007 @ 7:08 am
I think Jefferson Davis should be considered. He had some defects, some of which were virtues taken to a fault: for example, his indefatigable loyalty to the inept Bragg, allowing victory and potential victory to wash down the drain. But I still regard him as our third greatest President (after Washington and Jefferson).
Comment by TJH — August 30, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
Wasn’t Washington too much a Hamiltonian?
Tyler may have been our best prez because he followed the Constitution as far as I know without fail, and was thrown out of his own political party for it. #1 Tyler; #2 Jefferson #3 Davis.
Comment by ElizaF — August 31, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
It’s official. American is a nation of scoundrels and fools. Here is a list of their heroes, according to a 2001 Harris poll.
1. Jesus Christ
2. Martin Luther King
3. Colin Powell
4. John F. Kennedy
5. Mother Teresa
6. Ronald Reagan
7. Abraham Lincoln
8. John Wayne
9. Michael Jordan
10. Bill Clinton
11. John Glenn
12. Norman Schwartzkopf
13. George Washington
14. Oprah Winfrey
15. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
16. Princess Diana
17. Dwight Eisenhower
18. Pope John Paul
19. George W. Bush
20. Jimmy Carter
21. Nelson Mandela
22. Jesse Jackson
23. Tiger Woods
24. Malcolm X
25. Thomas Jefferson
26. Eleanor Roosevelt
27. Muhammad Ali
28. Venus Williams
29. Hillary Clinton
30. Neil Armstrong
Except for 13 and 25, none those names should be on a heroes list (including Christ, but for different reasons.)
When we cull out the sports figures, media personalities, and astronauts, we are left with almost uniformly wicked people. Only Kennedy, Carter and Reagan are exceptions. Despite many failings, the first two at least took courageous stands against the jewish establishment. And Reagan’s faults were probably more due to stupidity than turpitude.
But look at the remainder: MLK, Lincoln, the Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Mandela, the Clintons, and W. These are America’s heroes.
Sad, absurd, nauseating … but not surprising, at least if you have been paying any attention.
Comment by MRB — February 26, 2008 @ 2:33 am
I heartily agree with your decision to include R. L. Dabney in your list of top ten heros! If you have not read his The Practical Philosophy, by all means get a copy (from Sprinkle Publications). It is must reading. If you like Greg Bahnsen, you’ll love Dabney’s forthright manner in dealing with a host of vital issues. His chapter on Civic Ethics alone could be the basis for a Civics class. Every church, not to mention homeschoolers, should be teaching the contents of this important volume. There is no one alive today, to my knowledge, addressing key issues with the cogency of Dabney. The Practical Philosophy was Dabney’s last published book (1897). Sadly, today, by contrast, when it comes to addressing vital issues, most professing evangelical Christians sound like babbling children.
Don Williamson
Comment by Don Williamson — February 27, 2008 @ 1:18 pm