tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post7751473718668129009..comments2024-03-15T19:54:18.063+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Darwin, Lincoln, and the Progressives: A Reply to Steven HaywardLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-10013076493137428832007-05-08T07:50:00.000+01:002007-05-08T07:50:00.000+01:00"So if Darwin was responsible for Wilson and progr..."So if Darwin was responsible for Wilson and progressivism, Lincoln is equally responsible."<BR/><BR/>Being that Lincoln was a monstrous tyrant, this doesn't really get you far!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-84209887851392903352007-05-08T07:07:00.000+01:002007-05-08T07:07:00.000+01:00Dr. Arnhart,Though I myself and skeptical of Darwi...Dr. Arnhart,<BR/>Though I myself and skeptical of Darwinian Biology as a basis for conservative thought, Hayward's link of Alexander Stephens to Darwin is simply historically incorrect. The "Cornerstone" speech in which Stephens (a Southern Whig and skeptic on seccession) defended the new Confederate Constitution relied more on Genesis than Darwin.<BR/><BR/>Stephens characterized the anti-slavery position as "attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal." <BR/><BR/>Going further Stephens argues, "[m]any governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."<BR/><BR/>The curse of Canaan is from the Genesis account where G-d curses Canaan the son of Ham because of his sin with Noah. This is a common theme in Christian White Supremacy literature and was often argued by even mainstream Christian leaders in the segregationist South for inequality between the races. It seems Stephens was using an either or philosophy. Either the Bible supports my view or science. I do not suppose that we should reject either merely because the misguided misappropriated their use.<BR/><BR/>I am glad to see that Alexander Stephens has made a return to public conscientiousness. I reside in Athens, Georgia, home to the University of Georgia where he graduated. One of his great-great nephews is our Chief Superior Court Judge. A placard still marks the window on our oldest building Old College, where he and Crawford Long, an innovator in medecine resided.<BR/>Stephens despite his other efforts in moderation at the time will be forever linked to his "Cornerstone" speech. A fair warning to any of us who would put too much faith in any attempt to rigidly explain and categorize the human condition, in order to bolster our political fortunes.<BR/><BR/>Dean Clark,Jr.<BR/>Athens, GAE. Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03963483108513516060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-67716773992893167862007-05-07T17:12:00.000+01:002007-05-07T17:12:00.000+01:00Dr. Arnhart,It seems to me that the progressives c...Dr. Arnhart,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the progressives can misappropriate Darwin and well as Lincoln. You say, “But I suspect that since Hayward is a good student of Harry Jaffa, he would say that Wilson and the progressives misinterpreted Lincoln as an effort of rhetorical manipulation. So why not say the same about their use of Darwin?” Hayward does argue, in print, that the progressives misappropriate the Lincoln image and distort his view of equality. See Steven Hayward, “The Children of Abraham,” REASON, 23 (May, 1991): 24-31. Although this article doesn’t go into great detail as to the use of the Lincoln image in progressive rhetoric, Hayward mentions the appeal to Lincoln in Croly, FDR and Cuomo. Following Jaffa, at bottom, his general argument is the same as mine. Bottom line: radicalized egalitarianism in America can’t be laid at the foot of Lincoln. Rather, it originates with the historicist progressives. I cite this article liberally in the dissertation. <BR/><BR/>With respect to progressivism and Darwin, see page 27, where Hayward suggests that “Progressive thought begins with the premise that the revolution in natural science makes necessary a revolution in political science as well. Certainly Woodrow Wilson thought so.” He then quotes Wilson’s statement about living political constitutions being Darwinian in structure and continues by suggesting that, according to the progressive view, “Nature cannot tell us anything definite about the rights of man or the limits of government because nature is changeable.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com