Category Archives: America

America, Health

Staying Quiet at Home

Leave a comment
When I was out and about on Thursday, I didn’t see any blooming redbuds. When I walked the neighborhood on Saturday and Sunday, there they were. It’s nice to greet them each spring.

As I write this we are in the midst of the growing corona virus pandemic. According to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, worldwide cases now exceed 700,000 and deaths are over 35,000. In the USA it’s 143,000+ cases and 2,500+ deaths. In my county in Arkansas we have 33 cases, up 5 since Saturday. Thankfully, no deaths to this point.

We are under many restrictions imposed by the government, and other restrictions self-imposed. Our church cancelled in-person services before our governor restricted gatherings. School has been closed two, or maybe it’s three, weeks now. We go out as little as possible. I’m cancelling a doctor appointment this week, and will not be able to go in the building when Lynda goes for a doctor appointment tomorrow.

In some ways this isn’t much different than normal retirement. We’re a little more isolated, but, since I’m only working a little as my former company needs me, I don’t get out much for that. Normal weekly trips were for church, groceries/meds, and doctor as needed. Now it’s mainly groceries.

Sometime late this week there’s supposed to be a pre-construction conference at Centerton that I’m supposed to chair. They are trying to figure out how to make it a digital conference. But, I also need to sign the approved construction drawings as city engineer. We’ll see if I have to go in to City Hall, speak with no one, just do the signing in the lobby.

For the last two weeks I taught our Life Group via a Zoom conference. It’s been a learning experience, as each week we were cut off before I’d finished. I think we have it down for next week, but we’ll see. It was good to see everyone and hear them, even if we couldn’t be together. On Saturday we had a family Zoom conference, which went well. Nice to see the grandkids, our son, our daughter, and my sister. This may become something regular.

These bloomed all December through January, dropping their flowers during February and March. Here they are blooming again.

Meanwhile, spring has arrived. I’ve upped my walking, now trying to get three miles a day, trying to lose the last 50 pounds I’d like to lose (the doctor says 30). Yesterday I did the three miles in almost perfect weather. The redbuds are blooming, and the dogwoods aren’t far behind. Forsythia are still yellow, and a few jonquils have blooms. Our Christmas cacti have a few late blooms to brighten my reading time in the sun room.

We will get through this. The corona virus hasn’t peaked yet, but the end may be in sight. I suspect we will have another month of social distancing, though even longer wouldn’t surprise me. We’ll see how it goes for us. My prayer is that we humans, in the USA and around the world, would be smart about this and do what we can to end it.

America, Politics

Looking at One Person’s View On Impeachment

Leave a comment

I write this on Thursday, December 19, 2019, for posting on Friday.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Passions are running high on both sides. One FB friend I never would have suspected is FOR impeachment, mainly on the charge of obstructing Congress. I have debated him on FB, saying the president has no obligation to cooperate with those who are trying to remove him from office.

In past similar situations, thinking mainly of Nixon, he also defied Congress. Congress took him to court and asked that the SCOTUS fast-track the process. In compliance with the court, Nixon handed over the subpoenaed items, they showed he had indeed committed crimes, and he would have been impeached had he not resigned.

That’s not what Congress has done here. They have subpoenaed Trump for documents and witnesses. These have not been produced. Rather than go to court to have them enforced, they just impeached him.

In the debate with my friend on FB, another friend said Trump had already committed impeachable offenses and he offered a video of Robert Reich from April 5, 2017 as proof. While I have no respect for this former Cabinet member, I decided to listen to his video to see if I may have overlooked anything. Reich suggests four impeachable offenses at that time, with a fifth one brewing. Let’s look at them

One: Trump is “unfaithfully” executing his duties as president by accusing his predecessor, President Obama, of undertaking an illegal and impeachable act, with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation.

Sorry, Mr. Reich, but no one appointed you of what is or is not faithful or unfaithful execution of office. It is unfaithful execution to criticize your predecessor? Give me a break. This is ridiculous.

Two: The Constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments. But Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it. And will make a bundle off China’s recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand, decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president.

Is Trump “steering” business to his hotel? Or are foreign delegations using it because it’s a good venue in Washington DC? Is Trump donating the profits from that hotel to charity? Hardly impeachable. And, as to China, has any president in the last 100 years been tougher on China than Trump? Reich, your argument doesn’t hold up.

Three: Trump’s ban on travel into the U.S. from 6 Muslim countries, which he initiated, advocated for, and oversees—violated [the free exercise of religion clause].

The courts struck down that travel ban and it wasn’t enforced. How can it be impeachable when Trump complied with the court? Again, Mr. Reich, that’s ridiculous. I also point out (since you don’t seem to know this), that there are some 30 Muslim majority countries. If travel from individuals of six of those were banned, then travel from individuals from 24 of them was allowed. That’s hardly against the free exercise of religion.

Four: Trump’s labeling the press the “enemy of the people” and choosing whom he invites to news conferences based on whether they’ve given him favorable coverage, violates [the freedom of the press provision of Amendment 1].

What Reich is saying is the president cannot criticize the press. How did this criticism prevent them from doing their job? It didn’t. They were still free to publish. He denied them an audience. Guess what, Mr. Reich, the First Amendment doesn’t grant the press an audience. The president is free to give interviews to whom he wants to.

Five: Evidence is mounting that Trump and his aides colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election—which Reich says meets the definition of treason.

Reich was so wrong on this, where to begin? Several investigations failed to find the alleged collusion. The evidence mounted against this. If this took place, it happened while Trump was a candidate. Do you really think a president can be impeached for things he did before he was president? I think not.

I’ve never liked Reich, never thought he had the country’s best interests at heart. Now I’m sure of it.

America, History, Politics

Thoughts On Impeachment: Original Sources

Leave a comment
One of my copies of the Federalist Papers. Yes, I bought it used, to have at the office. This copy stays in the sun room; my other stays in The Dungeon.

As we deal with impeachment of the president in 2019, we have few precedents to base a position on. Impeachment has happened only twice, and would have occurred one other time had not the president resigned.

What is an impeachable offense? What was on the Founders’ minds at the Constitutional Convention? How would they approach it today? The place I always turn first on Constitutional issues is the Federalist Papers. What did Madison, Hamilton, and Jay have to say concerning this?

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

Federalist #65, by Alexander Hamilton

I don’t find this particularly helpful. Or, rather, it’s helpful, but not very comprehensive. Impeachment is a political process. Because the president is immune from being charged criminally while president, so that he/she wouldn’t be continuously harassed in office, impeachment by the House, trial by the Senate—resulting either in acquittal or conviction, resulting in removal from office, and then charging and trial by the courts. That’s the process, but for what can the president be impeached? I just went through the entire Federalist Papers, searching for “impeach” and other related terms. I’m surprised at how little is included. They include much discussion of why the Senate is the right body for impeachment trials. But, as far as discussions on what is and what is not an impeachable offense, I find very little, except what I’ve quoted above from Federalist #65.

An additional source is James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention. I just went through those notes, looking for discussion on what is impeachable, and I found this.

The clause referring to the Senate, the trial of impeachments agst. the President, for Treason & bribery, was taken up. Col. MASON. Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined. As bills of attainder which have saved the British Constitution are forbidden, it is the more necessary to extend: the power of impeachments. He movd. to add after “bribery” “or maladministration.”

Mr. GERRY seconded him.

Mr. MADISON So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS, it will not be put in force & can do no harm. An election of every four years will prevent maladministration.

Col. MASON withdrew “maladministration” & substitutes “other high crimes & misdemeanors agst. the State”

On the question thus altered

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

James Madison, Notes on the Constitutional Convention, for September 8, 1787

 This gives us a little more to go on. The original clause on impeachment was for treason and bribery. Mason of Virginia wanted to add “maladministration” as a reason for impeachment. What, exactly, is maladministration? I interpret it to mean “doing a bad job” or “not doing a good job”. In other words, incompetence or malfeasance.

The summary of the debate, somewhat spare in Madison’s words, was that maladministration would never in fact be used as a reason for impeachment, and the correction for maladministration is elections.

Facing rejection of his motion, Mason changed the motion to add “other high crimes & misdemeanors”. In other words, for crimes other than treason and bribery. This seems to me to be more or less the same as felonies and misdemeanors—things that would result in being charged in criminal court if not the president.

Others think the word “high” applies to both crimes and misdemeanors. If that were the case, the bar would be a little different than my interpretation.

The question now comes down to whether the impeachment of the current president meets the constitutional definition. Alas, I’ve already exceeded a reasonable word limit for a blog post, and will have to answer that in a future post. I may post earlier than my normal schedule.

America, History, memories

Remembering the Moon Race, Part 2

Leave a comment
This was a great source of national pride.

So it was 50 years ago tomorrow that man first walked on the moon. The day before that the Apollo 11 Command Module, along with the Lunar Module and the Service Module, were picking up speed as the moon’s gravity started to have an effect. By the end of the day they would be orbiting the moon.

I had been watching the Apollo missions closely. Well, that is once they got off the ground. Apollo 7 had stayed in earth orbit, checking out all the systems. Apollo 8 flew to the moon and orbited it. Apollo 9 stayed in earth orbit, deploying the LM with two astronauts, testing its systems. Apollo 10, in May 1969, flew to the moon and orbited. This was a full dress rehearsal for the landing. They deployed the LM, flew it to within 10 miles of the moon’s surface, successfully docked back with the CM, and returned. All that was left was actually landing.

Word had it that the USSR was going to launch an unmanned probe to make a soft landing on the moon, and that they were going to get it there before we landed. This was a little drama as Apollo 11 launched. Would we make our manned, soft landing before the Soviet’s did their soft, unmanned? At some point, possibly during our flight, we learned that the Soviet craft crashed on the moon, 5 minutes early. That was exactly the amount of time their retro-rockets should have fired to slow it to the soft landing. The cause of that failure was thus obvious (though some think it may have crashed into one of the taller mountains on the moon). The result was we had the moon to ourselves at that time.

I remember July 20, 1969. ‘Twas a Sunday. The moon walk was originally scheduled to take place late. My memory, which may not be correct, was that it was to happen after midnight, maybe around 1 a.m. on the 21st. NASA decided to move it forward, to around 11 p.m. on the 20th, after a four hour rest for Armstrong and Aldrin. But that was moved forward even more so that the moon walk would happen during East Coast prime time. [Note: I can find documentation of only one change in time for the moon walk.]

I remember the transmission, the first words, the astronauts walking on the surface, taking note of their bouncy steps in low gravity. It was all mesmerizing. I consider this one of the high points of my life. It was a privilege to watch this on TV. Oh, and I thank NASA for moving the walk forward, allowing me to watch it in prime time.

America, Documenting America, History, research, Writing

Documenting America: From the Cutting-Room Floor

2 Comments
The United States Constitution. What a great system of government.

As I mentioned in a previous post, as I’m going through the source documents for Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition, much good material gets edited out. It winds up on the cutting room floor, so to speak, using the movie industry term.  Some of this is good material. I’d love to use it in my book, but, alas, I need to keep the book a reasonable size.

The thought came to me to use it for blog post material. So, instead of just dumping it, I’ve been saving it for use when it’s time to write a blog post and I have nothing else in mind. It could also be newsletter material, I suppose, if I ever take the plunge to writing a newsletter.

But, again alas, something I put into a file last week, from one of the Federalist Papers, is now nowhere to be found. What did I do with it? Did I save it to my Documenting America Vol 3 folder? It’s not there. Did I save it to my Blog folder? It’s not there either. Maybe, without paying attention, I saved it to the root folder of my Documents. Nope, not there either. Did I fail to save it and let it go drifting off into the ether?

Whatever, the excellent item I was going to use for today is not on my computer. I could spend an hour looking for it, but think, instead, I’ll find something else. I saved other stuff.

Here’s one from an anonymous writing from someone from Pennsylvania who didn’t like the proposed constitution.

The wealthy and ambitious, who in every community think they have a right to lord it over their fellow creatures, have availed themselves, very successfully, of this favorable disposition; for the people thus unsettled in their sentiments, have been prepared to accede to any extreme of government; all the distresses and difficulties they experience, proceeding from various causes, have been ascribed to the impotency of the present confederation, and thence they have been led to expect full relief from the adoption of the proposed system of government, and in the other event, immediately ruin and annihilation as a nation. These characters flatter themselves that they have lulled all distrust and jealousy of their new plan, by gaining the concurrence of the two men in whom America has the highest confidence, and now triumphantly exult in the completion of their long meditated schemes of power and aggrandisement.

Whoever wrote this, a small part of a much longer article, was, I think, spot on concerning what happens when power is obtained and then applied to government. Wealthy and ambitious people do tend to lord it over their fellow citizens. They are successful, often from their own work, and they see this as a reason why they should 1) be held in high esteem by others, and 2) have positions of political power.

The writer of the original document seems to have been wrong, however, about the motives of those who wrote the Constitution and about how the government would function under it. Things turned out much better than his dire predictions. He knew things weren’t going well under the Articles of Confederation, and saw this new document as setting up a government of the rich and powerful. I believe most of our 232 year experience with it shows us that this isn’t so.

My Documenting America series focuses on our historical documents, and tries to inspire people to seek the documents out and read them.

Or is it? As I look on Congress today, I see lots of multi-millionaires. I see people who make laws that apply to others but not themselves. I see the rich and powerful say the government should take over your health care while they keep a very nice plan for themselves. Same with pensions and Social Security.

I could go on and on. Can you tell I’m not a big fan of Congress? I think most of the ills in the nation that are often attributed to the president—every president, no matter who it is—are often the fault of Congress, either due to their action or inaction.

So why didn’t this particular passage make it into my book? Simply a matter of space. This document, like all of them I’m using in the book, is chock full of good phrases and arguments. Some turned out to be wrong arguments, some right. It’s all worth reading. If someone reads Documenting America and then digs into the source documents, they’ll see this. All the better. If they don’t, this will remain obscure and unread.

Perhaps my book and this blog will help others to find and read it.

 

America, Documenting America, family

The Heckler’s Veto

Leave a comment

I haven’t said much about this recently, but our son is Dean of Students at the Law School at the University of Chicago. He’s been slowly working his way up through university administration since he earned his PhD in 2011, a degree he worked long and hard for.

In past positions (not at the Law School) he’s had a lot of interesting things come up, such as a student who presented letters saying he was a C.I.A. operative and therefore needed some type of special treatment. Or such as the student who forged her admission papers, showed up at registration, and tried to force her way into enrollment and housing. Some things weren’t so benign, such as student deaths to deal with when Dean on Call.

How may the right of free speech be abridged, if at all?

An interesting situation came up on April 9, 2019, when pro-Palestinian protesters interrupted a talk by a pro-Israel speaker. The talk concerned the boycott of Israel wanted by Palestinians. The talk was by a visiting professor. The Palestinians entered the room and began shouting, preventing the speaker from continuing. Someone called the campus police. Charles was close by in the law school, and so came down and tried to restore calm and allow the talk to continue. You can read about it in this article in The Chicago Maroon, the university newspaper.

Embedded in the article, in tiny print, is an e-mail Charles sent to the students later in the day, explaining what had happened, what his actions were, and how all this applied to University policy, especially the policy of free speech. I particularly liked this from his e-mail:

The heckler’s veto is contrary to our principles. Protests that prevent a speaker from being heard limit the freedoms of other students to listen, engage, and learn.”

This brings me to something concerning free speech that I’ve been thinking of for quite some time. It’s relevant to me now as I work on my next book, Documenting America: Making The Constitution Edition, especially in relation to the discussions on the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech is covered in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble….

As has been pointed out many times, the Constitution was written in a way to restrict the government, not the people. Laws of Congress restrict the people, but not the Constitution. Over time this has been re-interpreted as applying to the people as well. In certain areas, people must restrict their behavior based on the provisions of the Constitution.

Well done, Dean Todd!

What about in this case? The professor who was speaking has a right to free speech. The protestors who were preventing others from hearing him have a right to free speech. Do those in the audience have a right to hear the speaker? Is there any free speech when hearing is prevented?

Which brings me to something I’ve thought of for a long time. The right of free speech doesn’t guarantee the one speaking or publishing will have an audience. This, I think, is sometimes a problem with the press, especially the broadcast press, who decry alternate voices that crowd them out when they consider themselves to be “legitimate” news outlets and the others not. Sorry, but no one executing their right of free speech or free press has the right to an audience. No one.

But what about those who came to hear the speaker? Do they have a right to hear? I’m not sure. Certainly civility would say that they ought to be allowed to hear the speaker they came to hear, and that the protesters should find a different way to protest. Silently holding signs, confronting the speaker before and after speaking, establishing an alternative talk in another place. These would all be ways for the protesters to be heard and seek to gain their own audience.

This brings me down to what I’ve been thinking about: when rights clash. I have freedom of speech, but not where that right clashes with someone else’s right. I have freedom to practice my religion, but not where that right clashes with someone else’s right.

In a clash of rights, whose right should come out on top? Maybe before I ask that I should say, when rights clash, find a way to accommodate both people’s rights. Then, if you somehow can’t do that, whose right should come out on top? In the USA we have always said it should be the right of the weaker person.

I hope our nation always takes that position. The government was established to protect our God-given rights. When the rights of two people clash, and when no reasonable accommodation of both can be found, then the right of the weaker person should prevail. I can think of one huge area where, in a clash of rights, the Supreme Court and some of the States have come down on the side of the stronger party, but that will be a subject for a different post and perhaps a different blog.

 

America, Documenting America, research, Writing

Too Many Sources

Leave a comment

Richard Henry Lee, while a true patriot, wasn’t happy with the proposed Constitution.
[Photo by Billy Hathorn, used under creative commons license]
As I work on Documenting America: Making The Constitution Edition, my main problem is having too many sources or sources of too great a length with too many inspiring words. If I put in everything I want to, the book would be 200,000 words. In comparison, the first volume in the series was a mere 45, 000 words and the third only 70,000.

Clearly, I have much editing to do. A good example of this are some letters written by Richard Henry Lee right after the Convention. Published in a newspaper with a pseudonym, they were anti the proposed Constitution.

Since in the book I want to present both sides of the argument, Lee’s letters interested me. I pulled two of the five letters into my manuscript, and discovered they were over 9,000 words. Heavens! How in the world would I ever get them down to a reasonable length, which is between 1,000 and 2,000 words without throwing away valuable words?

I decided I had two different things I could do with the excess words. One is to take some excerpts from the letters and build blog posts around them. In furtherance of that, Here is a quote from Letter 3.

This, by a part of Art. 1, Sect. 4, the general legislature may do, it may evidently so regulate elections as to secure the choice of any particular description of men. It may make the whole state one district—make the capital, or any places in the state, the place or places of election—it may declare that the five men (or whatever the number)…the state may chuse who shall have the most votes shall be considered as chosen. In this case it is easy to perceive how the people who live scattered in the inland towns will bestow their votes on different men, and how a few men in a city, in any order or profession, may unite and place any five men they please highest among those that may be voted for and all this may be done constitutionally, and by those silent operations, which are not immediately perceived by the people in general. I know it is urged, that the general legislature will be disposed to regulate elections on fair and just principles: This may be true. Good men will generally govern well with almost any constitution: but why in laying the foundation of the social system, need we unnecessarily leave a door open to improper regulations? This is a very general and unguarded clause, and many evils may flow from that part which authorises the congress to regulate elections.

In the book I would make commentary on this excerpt. I would focus on how Lee’s fears were not met—except where gerrymandering occurs, but this is done by the States, not the Federal government. I would make reference to his statement that “Good men will generally govern well with almost any constitution” and quote it in my commentary, as I did here. While Lee’s letter is negative relative to the Constitution, I would present his side but find a way to make it positive.

And, perhaps, a fourth to this one? Yes: Making The Constitution Edition, hopefully in 2019. Update: It will come in 2019!

So why didn’t I? Why did so much of Lee’s words end up on the cutting room floor (my final excerpt being only 1450 of Lee’s 9200 words)? Chalk it up to editor’s license, and the fact that I have a surfeit of material, and that I judged other of Lee’s words to be better for my chapter.

It has occurred to me that I have a second way to use some of these deleted words or other sources that I have cast aside in my editorial duties. For years I’ve thought about starting a writer’s newsletter, to be shared via e-mail; something to “market my wares”, so to speak. I’ve hesitated doing this because of the work involved. For a while I thought I would wait until retirement to start it. I’m there now, and still hesitate due to the work.

I wanted to title the newsletter Citizen and Patriot, after the words of James Otis in his argument against the Writs of Assistance in 1761: “These manly sentiments in private life make the good citizen, in public life, the patriot and the hero.” That didn’t seem appropriate for a writer’s newsletter, however.

Then I thought, perhaps it could be a column in my newsletter. Since I hope to be forever working on books in my Documenting America series, this could be the column where I promote them.

Still another thought came to me. Perhaps I could make this a stand-alone newsletter, one that, through using the words from America’s historical documents, to urge good citizenship and patriotism. I could even make it a paid newsletter and maybe make a little money from my research.

Well, of necessity I’m going slowly with that. I would need a design, a simple masthead, and a few sample newsletters prepared to see what it looked like and how much time each would take. I’d need to establish a frequency, and utilize some time of e-mail marketing service to make it happen. All much work, it seems to me.

So, for now I’ll accumulate sources. I’ll relegate many unused sources, and large parts of used ones, to my editor’s waste pile—but I won’t discard them, not just yet. Perhaps I’ll have more blog posts about them, and maybe a newsletter somewhere in my future.

America, book reviews, Politics

Book Review: John Locke’s “Two Treatises on Government”

Leave a comment
John Locke significantly influenced key leaders of the American Revolution.

Last week I posted my book review on John Locke’s first treatise on government, promising to come back “soon” for a review of the second treatise. Here I am for that purpose. I made a slight digression, as I obtained Filmer’s Patriarcha and have allowed myself the distraction of reading it some.

In his second treatise, Locke is trying to say why government is established, and how, and how it is changed. I found his descriptions tedious. Again, how much of this was the archaic language and structure, how much my distracted reading, how much my small-screen device I don’t know. A future, second reading is on the unwritten to-do list.

Detected and overthrown? Locke was certainly confident about the success of his arguments.
Photo reference: Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=399928

Locke started by saying his first discourse had proven that Adam had no special authority to rule over all the earth, nor did his immediate or later heirs, that there was no right of succession, and that even if there had been a right of succession we have lost the line of succession; hence, what do we do? Did he prove that? I’ll have to re-read the first treatise to decide.

His conclusion, however, I can agree with: “…it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that [Adam and the right of succession]” and thus “all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion….” Therefore, mankind  “just of necessity found out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.”

Locke then sets out to describe and prove this process in 219 pages (in my copy). In chapter 2 he describes the State of Nature. In chapter 3 it’s the State of War. He discusses Slavery in chapter 4. This interested me. On the slavery-freedom continuum, where Filmer came down on the end that is slavery, Locke comes down on the end of freedom.

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.” Locke’s Second Treatise, Chapter 4, section 22

I like Locke’s position. Given opposite ends of the continuum, all men are slaves (except for the king) or all men are free, I agree that all men are free. This seems more natural than that all men are born slaves, subject to the one man who has dominion over all.

I could go on and on. Locke talks of Property in chapter 5 and the right to defend it. His discussion of Paternal Power in chapter 6 is a blur to me. Moving to Political or Civil Society in chapter 7, Locke held my interest a little more. This phrase, “man in society”, shows up in the writings of our Founding Fathers. It’s the buzz word of the day for mankind not living alone, but with other men, and thus having to modify behavior so as to live at peace.

The latter is part of Locke’s system of government that I need to know better. I’m sure I’ll re-read this book. I may, perhaps, read Filmer all the way through first, and maybe Hobbes, now that I have both in my possession.

The American Founding Fathers liked Locke. I need to too. I’m not really there yet. As I re-read some of the second treatise in preparation for this review, it seemed clearer to me. I was able to focus on Locke’s premises and arguments, rather than just read the words. Maybe there’s hope for me yet in understanding these books.

Do I recommend anyone else read these books? I don’t, at least not yet. Perhaps in a few months, or maybe a year, I’ll have finished a second read and will revisit this in a post.

 

America, Documenting America, History, Writing

Don’t Bash Rhode Island

3 Comments

I had a different post planned for today, but think I’ll go this way instead.

There’s a reason The Independent Man is atop our statehouse: We are independent minded. Or, are we just stubborn?

Yesterday, I thought I was done with my research in Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition. I had all my chapters lined-out, all my source text found and entered in a Word document. Well, almost all, as the source text for one chapter eluded me. Yesterday I found an alternative (actually, two) and that’s now in the document. I even wrote my commentary on a chapter yesterday. Now up to nine chapters complete out of a probably thirty-one.

I started work on the next chapter, editing the source text. It’s a letter from Thomas Jefferson, while he was in Paris in 1787, to Edward Carrington. TJ made some very good points and I’m happy to have that in my book. I figured writing the chapter around it would be somewhat easy.

But, I wanted to see what Carrington had written to TJ to prompt this letter. I went to the Library of Congress website, which has been my source for so much. It didn’t take too long to learn Carrington hadn’t written to TJ in six years. TJ had re-initiated the correspondence. I decided then to see how Carrington responded.

That was easy to find with the tools on the LOC site. Jefferson wrote Jan 16, 1787; Carrington responded April 24, 1787, a reasonable lag given the time for a letter to sail across the ocean. So last night I began reading the April 24 letter, and enjoyed it until I came to this sentence.

Rhode Island is at all points so anti-federal, and contemptible, that her neglecting the invitation, will probably occasion no demur whatever in the proceedings. 

I kept reading, however, as a good researcher should do. I next went to Carrington’s June 9, 1787 letter to TJ, written before Jefferson had responded. It this letter I found the following.

All the States have elected representatives except Rhode Island, whose apostasy from every moral, as well as political, obligation, has placed her perfectly without the views of her confederates; nor will her absence, or nonconcurrence, occasion the least impediment in any stage of the intended business.

And I though, them’s fightin’ word mister! How dare you bash my home state like that. I suppose, however, he’s correct. He’s talking about choosing and sending delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This followed the failed Annapolis convention in 1786. Rhode Island didn’t attend that one, though they did appoint delegates who simply didn’t arrive on time.

Now, however, as the Constitutional Convention drew near, Little Rhody was the only State to boycott it. They liked the ineffective Articles of Confederation just fine, thank, and didn’t want them changed. They liked doing things their way, even if they wound up being a tiny, independent nation.

I think it was the word “contemptible” that rankled me. Yes, Rhode Island is a different kind of state. The top of our statehouse has a statue titled the Independent Man.  We have our quirks and love having our quirks.

Then the word “apostasy” also rankled. Carrington didn’t mean this in the religious sense, but rather in terms of politics, that we had fallen away from the sense of cooperation that pervaded during the Revolutionary War. We had ceased looking at ourselves as part of a larger union. Still, the word hurt.

It also hurt that he said it didn’t matter if Rhode Island showed up or not. He said that twice, once in each letter. Was that because of our size and relatively small population? Most likely.

I’ve been away from Rhode Island now for 45 years. I still visit from time to time, and keep in touch with relatives and friends there. I may live in Arkansas, but I still feel like a Rhode Islander.

And I love this research I’m doing for the book. I need to be careful, however. I could research for days and days, enjoying it so much that I’d never get the book written. I need to cut it off and just stick with the writing.

And I will, just as soon as I absorb these Carrington letters.

America, Documenting America, History, Writing

Religious Freedom Revisited

Leave a comment

As I’m working on Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition, I find that certain topics come back into current American life that have been discussed and, supposedly, settled before. Religious freedom seems to be one of them.

My research suggests that the Founding Fathers did indeed want to keep some degree of separation between religion and government. Their primary focus was preventing the government from regulating religion or restricting who/how/why people could worship.

The latest infringement on the free exercise of religion is US senators asking candidates nominated to various government positions about their religion and how it would affect their performance in office. I first noticed this almost 20 years ago when Chuck Shumer, then a relatively new senator from New York, asked Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft how he could turn off his evangelical Christianity so he could do a proper job as A.G.

I was shocked then and am shocked now when people like Senator Feinstein says to a candidate, “The dogma is strong in this one.” The U.S. Constitution says:

but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

When Shumer asks “How do you turn it off” and Feinstein says “the dogma is strong in this one,” what is that if not a religious test. Shumer is saying you can’t be Attorney General if you’re a practicing evangelical. Feinstein is saying you can’t be a Federal judge if you are a devout Catholic. Shame on these senators!

This was all settled in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson led the way in his writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was later put into law in that state. Religious freedom came in this form.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Note that religion should not affect their “civil capacities.” In other words, the law shouldn’t punish someone because of their religion. By the time the Constitution was written, this was applied to Federal officials through the religious test clause.

So here we are, 232 years later, fighting the same battles we did years ago. What will it take for this to end, for us to win the battle again that a person’s religion cannot disqualify them from holding a Federal office? Maybe it will take one nominee to refuse to answer a question about their religion, to tell the senator who asks, politely, where to shove the question, to show that the Constitution means something.

I’m hopeful that will happen next time the situation comes up.