Footnote 34 – John Fabian Witt, Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History (New York: The Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 2013), p. 213.

Lincoln on Emancipation, the Bible, and God’s Will

Lincoln gave voice to his thinking on the subject in September [1862] when a church delegation from Chicago came to the White House to present a memorial endorsing emancipation… He told the delegates that religious men regularly approached him with advice. They were invariably “certain that they represent the divine will.” But they came with radically opposing views (“the most opposite opinions and advice”), and not all of them could be right. It might even be that all of them were wrong.

And there was the nub of the problem. How could one learn God’s will, and if one could not, how could one make the grave decision…? “If I can learn what it is I will do it!” Lincoln said. But God’s justice was inscrutable. “These are not,” he reminded his memorialists, “the days of miracles.” There would be no “direct revelation.” …Confederate troops were no doubt “expecting God to favor their side” just as Union men thought that God would favor theirs….

But the Chicago Christians replied with a much older idea…Unbeknownst to them, their reply followed the course Lincoln’s own thinking had been taking over the previous weeks. Moral uncertainty, they observed, could not excuse paralysis. “Good men,” they conceded, “differed in their opinions.” But “the truth was somewhere,” and men could not merely set one opinion against another and throw up their hands. The moral leader had to act, had to bring “facts, principles, and arguments” to bear and come to a conclusion as to what justice required

…[W]hen the interview closed, it was clear that Lincoln and his Chicago petitioners were not so far apart after all. “Do not misunderstand me because I have mentioned these objections,” Lincoln told them. “Whatever shall appear to be God’s will I will do.”

34 John Fabian Witt, Lincoln’s Code: The Laws of War in American History (New York: The Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 2013), p. 213.

Book on the origin of Israel available

This book is still available on Kindle at $2.99

Ferrell Jenkins's avatarFerrell's Travel Blog

Daniel I. Block’s book, Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention?, is available in Kindle format today for $2.99. The retail price of the hardback is $28.

The publisher (B&H) of the 2008 book describes it as

a collection of essays responding to the radical claims that Israel and its history actually began following the Babylonian exile, and that the history of Israel we read about in the Bible is a fictionalized account.

Contributors are leading Bible and archaeology scholars who bring extra-biblical evidence to bear for the historicity of the Old Testament and provide case studies of new work being done in the field of archaeology.

The book includes the following essays dealing with some of the current discussions in Biblical studies.

  • Israel – Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? – Daniel I. Block
  • The Value and Limitations of the Bible and Archaeology – Alan R. Millard
  • Contextual Criticism…

View original post 151 more words

Excitement at Carchemish

Ferrell Jenkins's avatarFerrell's Travel Blog

It must have been exciting to be at Carchemish in 605 B.C. when Pharaoh Neco came all the way from Egypt to this city now on the border between Syria and Turkey. On an earlier excursion from Egypt to Carchemish in 609 B.C., Neco killed Josiah, king of Judah, at Megiddo.

Pharaoh Neco came to assist the Assyrians as they fought the Babylonians. But the emerging world power from the southern Euphrates city of Babylon overpowered the Assyrians and the Egyptians and sent Neco running back to Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, chased Neco to the border of Egypt.

It is still exciting at Carchemish. I have been within sight of Carchemish once. The military installations were clearly visible on top of the tell. The tour operator handling my tour in Turkey a previous time advised me not to go to Carchemish (Karkamis) because it is “zero on the border”…

View original post 472 more words

Homeschooling History and Statistics

Homeschooling History and Statistics

VERY interesting infographic — via Lindsay Wolfgang Mast and

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=v8kuxxbab&v=001rFp1utu-80zc_2nWEr2UsAJPvv-ciYesVt7_EcNKJzjZUjgrORDjMPt5p94H3c704Ff137paOZ6q4f2Oz9G2DmiHq195XyoGXtlz_1D4Z0zKs7zWykxLMA%3D%3D

April 2013 TOS
April 2013 TOS
April 2013 TOS
April 2013 TOS
April 2013 TOS
April 2013 TOS
The Old Schoolhouse Magazine | PO Box 8426 | Gray | TN | 37615

This Week in the Civil War: Aug 12-18, 1863

WalterCoffey's avatarCivil War History

Wednesday, August 12.  On the South Carolina coast, Federal cannon began firing on Confederate positions at Fort Sumter and Battery Wagner in Charleston Harbor. This was an effort to test the range of the heavy Parrott rifles, but it began a new Federal offensive against the harbor. Fort Sumter was severely damaged by the batteries.

President Abraham Lincoln refused to grant an army command to General John McClernand, who had been relieved as corps commander by General Ulysses S. Grant for insubordination. A Federal expedition began from Memphis, Tennessee to Grenada, Mississippi. Skirmishing occurred in Mississippi.

Thursday, August 13.  A Confederate army chaplain wrote to President Jefferson Davis “that every disaster that has befallen us in the West has grown out of the fact that weak and inefficient men have been kept in power… I beseech of you to relieve us of these drones and pigmies.” The recent Confederate defeats…

View original post 530 more words

Truth IS Stranger Than Fiction

Truth IS Stranger Than Fiction

Reblogging an interesting item sent to me by a friend who may prefer to remain anonymous.  Straight from the annals of “truth is stranger than fiction,” ponder this satirical take on WWII, cleverly deriding pretentious post-modern views of “reality,”  particularly the modern refusal to acknowledge real evil — since “everyone knows”  that any notion of plots to obliterate the family by redefining marriage, to destroy western and Christian culture by secularization and/or by demographic and militaristic growth of Islamist philosophy, etc. are just too far-fetched for even a TV series, much less real life!  (NB: blog excerpts omit language which some readers might find offensive).

“….the worst offender here is the History Channel and all their programs on the so-called ‘World War II.’  Let’s start with the bad guys. Battalions of stormtroopers dressed in all black, check. Secret police, check. Determination to brutally kill everyone who doesn’t look like them, check. Leader with a tiny villain mustache and a tendency to go into apopleptic rage when he doesn’t get his way, check. All this from a country that was ordinary, believable, and dare I say it sometimes even sympathetic in previous seasons.

I wouldn’t even mind the lack of originality if they weren’t so heavy-handed about it. Apparently we’re supposed to believe that in the middle of the war the Germans attacked their allies the Russians, starting an unwinnable conflict on two fronts, just to show how sneaky and untrustworthy they could be? And that they diverted all their resources to use in making ever bigger and scarier death camps, even in the middle of a huge war? Real people just aren’t that evil. And that’s not even counting the part where as soon as the plot requires it, they instantly forget about all the racism nonsense and become best buddies with the definitely non-Aryan Japanese.

Not that the good guys are much better…. It’s pretty standard “shining amazing good guys who can do no wrong” versus “evil legions of darkness bent on torture and genocide” stuff, totally ignoring the nuances and realities of politics. The actual strategy of the war is barely any better…. one example: in the Battle of the Bulge, a vastly larger force of Germans surround a small Allied battalion and demand they surrender or be killed. The Allied general sends back a single-word reply: “Nuts!”. The Germans attack, and, miraculously, the tiny Allied force holds them off long enough for reinforcements to arrive and turn the tide of battle. Whoever wrote this episode obviously had never been within a thousand miles of an actual military.

Probably the worst part was the ending. The British/German story arc gets boring, so they tie it up quickly, have the villain kill himself (on Walpurgisnacht of all days, not exactly subtle) and then totally switch gears to a battle between the Americans and the Japanese in the Pacific. Pretty much the same dichotomy – the Japanese kill, torture, perform medical experiments on prisoners, … and the Americans are led by a kindly old man in a wheelchair.

Anyway, they spend the whole season building up how the Japanese home islands are a fortress, and the Japanese will never surrender, and there’s no way to take the Japanese home islands because they’re invincible…and then they realize they totally can’t have the Americans take the Japanese home islands so they have no way to wrap up the season.

So they invent a completely implausible superweapon that they’ve never mentioned until now. Apparently the Americans got some scientists together to invent it, only we never heard anything about it because it was “classified.”  In two years, the scientists manage to invent a weapon a thousand times more powerful than anything anyone’s ever seen before.  Then they use the superweapon, blow up several Japanese cities easily, and the Japanese surrender. Convenient, isn’t it?

…and then, in the entire rest of the show, over five or six different big wars, they never use the superweapon again. Seriously. They have this whole thing about a war in Vietnam that lasts decades and kills tens of thousands of people, and they never wonder if maybe they should consider using the unstoppable mystical superweapon that they won the last war with. At this point, you’re starting to wonder if any of the show’s writers have even watched the episodes the other writers made.

I’m not even going to get into the whole subplot about breaking a secret code (cleverly named “Enigma”, because the writers couldn’t spend more than two seconds thinking up a name for an enigmatic code), the giant superintelligent computer called Colossus (despite this being years before the transistor was even invented), the Soviet strongman whose name means “Man of Steel” in Russian (seriously, between calling the strongman “Man of Steel” and the Frenchman “de Gaulle”, whoever came up with the names for this thing ought to be shot).

So yeah. Stay away from the History Channel. Unlike most of the other networks, they don’t even try to make their stuff believable.”

Entire entry at http://squid314.livejournal.com/275614.html

American Historical Association blog

American Historical Association blog

Mysterious structure in the Sea of Galilee

Ferrell Jenkins's avatarFerrell's Travel Blog

Scientists report the discovery of a mysterious structure in the Sea of Galilee on the SW “corner” near the site of Bet Yerah.

According to Live Sciencehere, this structure is made of large basalt blocks. These volcanic stones are common in the region.

A giant “monumental” stone structure discovered beneath the waters of the Sea of Galilee in Israel has archaeologists puzzled as to its purpose and even how long ago it was built.

The mysterious structure is cone shaped, made of “unhewn basalt cobbles and boulders,” and weighs an estimated 60,000 tons the researchers said. That makes it heavier than most modern-day warships.

Rising nearly 32 feet (10 meters) high, it has a diameter of about 230 feet (70 meters). To put that in perspective, the outer stone circle of Stonehenge has a diameter just half that with its tallest stones not reaching that height.

You…

View original post 88 more words

Footnote 12 – History of Hymns – Steve Wolfgang

Click to access wolfgang.pdf

Since my lecture at Faulkner University a few weeks ago, I have received several inquiries about an article I wrote several years back, surveying the history of hymns and hymnals, especially have they hve influence hymnody in the “Restoration Movement.”  Since I have posted this reference on several other sites and FB pages, why not put it on my own? As with any human endeavor, it has some errors and other flaws, and stands in need of revision.  But it will have to do for now.

Footnote 11 – Bernard A. Weisberger, “Reflections on the Dry Season”

Footnote 11 –  Bernard A. Weisberger, “Reflections on the Dry Season,” American Heritage, May/June 1990, 28-30.

Through the years, there has been a useful body of pertinent research done by well-recognized historians on the general background of Prohibition.

For example, Bernard Weisberger, a nationally-recognized historian who wrote a current-events column (“In the News”) for the popular historical journal American Heritage, addressed in one such article the widespread (mis)conception that Prohibition “didn’t work.”  Among the facts cited by Weisberger are:

“Prohibition did reduce drinking. The average annual per capita consumption of alcohol by Americans of drinking age – that is, the total alcoholic content of all the beer, wine, and distilled spirits they consumed – stood at 2.60 gallons” in 1910. In 1934, after more than a decade of prohibition, Weisberger reports the per capita average of 0.97 gallons.

“Census Bureau studies show that the death rate from chronic or acute alcoholism fell from 7.3 per 100,000 in 1907” to “2.5 in 1932, Prohibition’s last year. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver, one cause of which is alcohol abuse, dropped from 14.8 per 100,000 in 1907 to 7.1 in 1920 and never rose above 7.5 during the 1920’s. Economic studies estimated that savings and spending on household necessities increased among working-class families during the period, possibly from money that once went to drink.”  These are not the propaganda of some biased zealot, but the factual report of a nationally-known historian.

Furthermore, Weisberger reports that one reason why Prohibition may be commonly thought so unsuccessful is that even the above improvements were achieved with a minimum of enforcement. He continues:

“Drinking might have been cut back even further if more resources had been devoted to enforcement. In 1922 Congress gave the Prohibition Bureau only $6.75 million for a force of 3,060 employees (including clerical workers) to hunt for [violators] in thousands of urban neighborhoods, remote hollows, border crossings, and coastal inlets. State legislators were equally sparing: in 1926 state legislatures all together spent $698,855 for Prohibition work, approximately one eighth of what they spent on enforcing fish-and-game laws. Even so, by 1929 the feds alone had arrested more than half a million violators.”

Nor was this “new” information, even 20 years ago; a 1968 article by historian of science John C. Burnham of Ohio State University in the Journal of Social History revealed even more data along the lines Weisberger adduces. To imply that attempts to restrict alcohol sales can’t be effective ignores the available evidence. Professor Norman H. Clark’s 1976 study, Deliver Us From Evil, makes a persuasive cause that during Prohibition, arrests for drunkenness and alcohol-related crimes declined markedly.

Of course, a much earlier author reminds us across the ages that “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise” (Proverbs 20:1).

–Adapted from Truth Magazine XXXVI:15 (August 6, 1992), p. 457