Tag Archives: US Civil War

RASHIDA TLAIB

Rashida Tlaib was kicked out of a Donald Trump event during the 2016 election. She wasn’t sorry then, and will likely remain a strong anti-Trump voice. (Bustle website, By Joseph D. Lyons, Aug 8 2018)

Rashida Tlaib became the first Muslim woman to enter Congress earlier this month.   From Detroit, the lady has already succeeded in re-writing American history.   She famously described the president using a particularly offensive expletive and made an untrue statement that has not been challenged by anyone.   In talking about the use of the Koran in the swearing in, she said:

“I like that,” the Democrat told CNN. “I like that it’s kind of pushing against the stereotype that somehow we’re new to this country.”

Ahh, but Muslims are new to this country.

There’s no record of any before the US Civil War.   If there were, no doubt there would be Muslims buried in Civil war cemeteries.

It is estimated that between 10-20% of African-American arrivals during the slave trade were Muslim, but they were forced to convert to Christianity upon arrival.   They were also forced to accept Christian names.

So, when did Muslims arrive?   From the 1880’s to 1914, many arrived in America as refugees from the Ottoman Empire.

In 1929 the country’s first ever mosque was built, in Chicago.

It was after 1965, the year that Senator Edward Kennedy introduced his Immigration Reform Bill, that Muslims started to arrive en masse.   Additionally, a high birth rate contributed to rapid growth.

“In 2005, more people from Muslim-majority countries became legal permanent United States residents – nearly 96,000 – than there had been in any other year in the previous two decades.   In 2009, more than 115,000 Muslims became legal residents of the United States.”  (Wikipedia, Islam in America.)

So, the real growth in the numbers of Muslims, is fairly recent.

WAS JEFFERSON A MUSLIM?

Most Americans would have been surprised when she was sworn in as a US Congresswoman on Thomas Jefferson’s Koran.   This news has been received with great enthusiasm by the anti-Christian media, ever desirous of distancing American history from its Christian roots.

Now, owning a Koran does not make you a Muslim.   I have one in my library.

But, in the history of US-Muslim relations, Jefferson’s copy may have had more significance.

The Barbary pirates were America’s first major foreign policy challenge following independence.   Four Muslim nations along the North African coast (Algiers, Tripoli, Tunis and Morocco) were seizing shipping and US sailors in the western Mediterranean.   It is estimated that between 1 million and 1.25 million white slaves were being held by these slave-owning nations at this time.   The only nations that escaped were those who paid a ransom to the Arab countries.   The US did this for a while, giving a full 10% of its annual budget.   Clearly, this could not go one.

Attacks on American shipping began in 1784 and continued for about twenty years.

“In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja).   When they enquired “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury,” the ambassador replied:

“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.   He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.””

“Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the ambassador’s comments and offer to Congress.   Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks.   Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built.   The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt.”  (“First Barbary War,” Wikipedia)     (Note:   the word”musselman” is an old term for Muslims.)

Although there is no official record of when Jefferson acquired his copy of the Koran, this seems the most likely.   He was reading it to better inform himself on the actions of the Arab leaders America was threatened by.   Such a course would be advisable today.

The turning point in the war was the Battle of Derma in 1805, when US and mercenary troops, captured the Tripolitan city of Derma. They were then able to use the conquered city as a bargaining chip for the release of US personnel and to impose a peace.

During this twenty-year period the US acted alone, as all the European countries were pre-occupied with fighting Napoleon.

If we do not read more American history, people like Rashida Tlaib will get the better of us, making exaggerated claims by Muslims.

Ms Tlaib should also be mindful of what the Bible says about Jesus Christ.

“Neither is there salvation in any other;  for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

He can even help you clean up your language!

—————————————————————

ISLAMIC PARTY OF ONTARIO

In addition to the four main parties already contesting elections in Ontario, there is now an Islamic party.

“It operates with a mandate to introduce Islamic rule in Ontario and Canada because, according to the fledgling party,   “We understand and believe that Islam is the native DEEN (religion) of Ontario and Canada.”

“The Islamic Party of Ontario is headed by one Jawed Anwar, who operates out of the Toronto neighborhood of Thorncliffe Park.” (Middle East Forum, Tarek Fatah, 1/1/19)

——————————————————————

Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour says the prophet Muhammed was a human rights activist

On December 2, 2018, Palestinian-American political activist Linda Sarsour spoke at the 2018 Salam Annual Banquet, held at the Salam Community Center in Sacramento, CA.   She criticized President Trump for moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, saying:   “I declare to all of you here today in Sacramento that Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Palestine.”   Calling the Trump administration fascist, she encouraged Muslims to become involved in politics even if their mosques usually avoid politics, because, she said, simply being Muslim is a political act. The Prophet Muhammad, she asserted, was a human rights activist, adding that there is no need for workers’ rights movements, environmental justice movements, or Black Lives Matter movements, or anti-racism or feminism, because Islam taught these values long before they were hashtags or movements.   She added:   “I don’t need people in the West, people in Europe, or people in the United States . . . to teach me what feminism is.”   (MEMRI, No. 7878, January 9 2019)

——————————————————

SAUDI JOURNALIST WRITES:

In his July 8, 2018 column in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah, Muhammad Al-Sheikh slams Arab and African Muslim immigrants who choose to live in the West and even risk their lives to reach it, yet express hatred and contempt towards the West and regard it as infidel.   He criticizes in particular the ingratitude of mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are immigrants themselves, who abuse the democracy and free speech in their host countries by inciting against the West.   In light of this, says Aal Al-Sheikh, the European right’s opposition to immigration is justifiable, for it is only natural to oppose the influx of immigrants who are “steeped to the bone in a culture of hostility and hatred.” (MEMRI, 7840. 1/10/19)

———————————————————

America is heading for an almighty fight over presidential authority  (Leaders * Jan 9th 2019 * The Economist)

THE GOVERNMENT has partially shut down.  Again.   No other advanced democracy has government shutdowns.   In America they have become almost routine.   This is the third since Donald Trump became president and by far the most damaging.   The others were resolved quickly; this is already the second-longest on record. It is not happening because America is in turmoil: the country is not at war, unemployment is as low as it has ever been.   It is happening because that is what the president wants.

What is playing out in Washington is the denouement of a political fight.

Mr. Trump was elected on a promise to build a wall on the southern border, though Mexico was supposed to pay for it.   The new Democratic majority in the House is reluctant to give the president a victory on his best-known policy.   The Senate majority leader, who might be able to end the standoff, is AWOL.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

——————————————————————-

Stretched Thin

In fact, living paycheck to paycheck – meaning there’s not a cash cushion to cover the bills if the income stops for awhile – is a common condition in America.   In the 12th richest nation in the world by per capita GDP, nearly 8 in 10 U.S. workers live paycheck to paycheck, according to a 2017 study by CareerBuilder, a human capital management firm.   And the trend crosses over income groups:   more than half of minimum wage workers said they needed to hold down two jobs to make ends meet, while one in 10 workers earning $100,000 or more yearly say they live paycheck to paycheck.

And if there’s an emergency?   A large number of Americans don’t have an accessible stash of money to cover a substantial health care expense or car repair, studies show.   The Federal Reserve Board in 2017 found that 44 percent of American households surveyed could not cover a $400 emergency expense.   A separate BankRate study last year yielded similar results, finding that while 34 percent of those surveyed had experienced a major unexpected expense in the previous year, just 39 percent of those surveyed said they could tap $1,000 from savings to cover it.   (“Stretched Thin,” US News, Susan Milligan, 1/11/19)

————————————————–

FROM THE EURO TO BREXIT

The Euro is twenty years old this month.  The Telegraph’s finance writer, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote an article commemorating the anniversary.   Here’s an excerpt.

“While EU leaders quibbled over decimal points and debt repayment in Brussels, youth jobless rates reached 57pc in Greece, 56pc in Spain, and much the same across Italy’s Mezzogiorno.  These were levels once unthinkable in a modern developed democracy.  They have left a wreckage of ‘labour hysteresis’ that will lower economic speed limits for a generation to come.

“Several hundred thousand economic refugees came to work in Britain from the EMU depression belt.   A further wave from Eastern Europe came to the UK instead of going to the eurozone as they would have done in normal times.   The double surge had maximum impact just before the Referendum.

“More subtly, the euro crisis revealed that the pathologies of monetary union cannot be managed by normal democratic means. The elected prime ministers of Greece and Italy were toppled in 2010 and 2011 and replaced by EU functionaries in soft coups organized by Brussels and the pro-EMU vested interests of each country.

“The ECB switched off liquidity support for Greek commercial banks in 2015, knowingly (and illegally?) precipitating a banking collapse that was hard to reconcile with the ECB’s treaty duty to uphold financial stability.   When push come to shove, the reflex was authoritarian.   It spoke to the character of the EU.   That I why I voted for Brexit.”

 

 

 

Advertisements

DID A DYING PRINCE ALBERT SAVE A DYING UNITED STATES?

Our Man in Charleston

I’m currently reading a new non-fiction book that may interest some of you.   It tells the story of the British Consul in Charleston, South Carolina, in the years leading up to and into the US Civil War (1861 to 1865).

When southern states seceded from the United States, the hope across the Confederacy was that they would receive support from the British government.   Britain was the greatest power in the world at the time and had the most powerful military.   They had a great deal of support in the British press.   British commercial interests strongly suggested the United Kingdom would support the South – the UK was the biggest importer of southern cotton, which was needed to feed the clothing factories in the North of England.

The British government’s Consul in Charleston was Robert Bunch, who lived in the city with his wife and children.   His instructions were to ingratiate himself with prominent citizens and report to London.   His reports to the British government, via the Ambassador in Washington, Lord Lyons, were highly influential in determining Britain’s attitude toward the breakaway republic.

Great Britain had abolished the slave trade in 1807, the first major power to do so.   With the world’s most powerful navy, the British took it upon themselves to stop vessels on the high seas and free any slaves they found.   The US followed one year later, but American vessels continued to transport slaves from West Africa, where African leaders continued the practice.   These slave ships transported people in the most horrible conditions, many dying en route.   The Royal Navy’s ships were kept busy along the West African coast throughout the nineteenth century.

Bunch was repulsed by slavery and by those who kept slaves. But he hid his feelings extremely well, as he mixed with leading Charlestonians in the 1850’s.   The people around him thought that he sympathized with them and their “peculiar custom” of slavery and would support the South when it broke away from the North.   But he was, in fact, sending back to London reports on the brutality of slavery, reports that made it impossible for London to show any support for the Confederacy.

He did his job so well that the US Secretary of State, William Seward, pressured the British government to remove Bunch from Charleston as he was a “known” secessionist!

In late 1861, there was a major crisis between Washington and London that almost brought the two countries to war.   If that had happened, the UK would likely have recognized the South and the Confederacy would still exist.

The crisis was triggered when an American navy steamer, the USS San Jacinto, under Captain Charles Wilkes, boarded a British mail ship, the Trent, and arrested two prominent Southerners who were on their way to London to appeal for recognition and help.   The British protested volubly.   The British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, wrote a seriously threatening note, which would have placed Abraham Lincoln’s Administration in a difficult position and would almost certainly have led to another war between the two great English speaking nations.

Then something interesting happened.

“Before the ultimatum could be sent, however, it had to be read and approved by the palace.   On other occasions this might have been largely a formality, and, indeed, in this case Queen Victoria had other priorities.   She was giving a dinner party and did not want it interrupted.   But Prince Albert, her beloved consort, begged off from the dinner, saying he felt ill.   Feverish with the first symptoms of the typhoid that would kill him a few days later, Albert sat down at his desk to look at the ultimatum, and he did not like what he saw. Palmerston and Russell (British Foreign Minister) were giving Lincoln and Seward no way out. They would have to bend to Britain’s will, release Slidell and Mason (the two Southern gentlemen), and apologize abjectly or face the greatest military power on earth.

“For twenty years Albert had made the fight against slavery, and especially the slave trade, one of his important causes.   He did not want to see the Crown tarnished by a war that might guarantee the continuation of slavery for generations to come.   He deeply mistrusted Palmerston’s bellicosity and thought of Russell as something of a lightweight.   He wanted the brashness in the official note to be softened:   “Her Majesty’s Government are unwilling to believe that the United States Government intended wantonly to put an insult upon this country…..”   The new wording left a way open for Seward to explain the incident as an accident, if only he would take it.”   (“Our Man in Charleston”, by Newsweek’s Christopher Dickey, pages 297-8, Crown Publishers.)

“The language offered by Prince Albert had left room for a face-saving response in Seward’s reply:   Charles Wilkes had not been acting under orders.   Three days after Christmas the correspondence of Seward and the British and French foreign ministers was published, announcing the release of the Confederate emissaries.”

War between the US and Britain had been averted, thanks to a German prince’s careful editing of a diplomatic note, written in English!   If the more strident note had resulted in war between Britain and America, London would have supported the Confederacy and the United States would have been permanently divided.   If Prince Albert had not been seriously ill, the outcome of the Civil War could have been very different.

The book is an interesting read and gives some fresh insight into the Civil War.