When the time came for a new form of government, American traits were well-established. This series of blog posts will explore those.
What is it that differentiated the United States of America? What separates us from all other nations? Or is there anything? Are we the same as the other nations, but we became wealthy and powerful by chance of time and location? Did we just happen to find the right combination of population and resources?
Many talk of American exceptionalism. When did that kick in? Were we exceptional at the beginning, or did we develop into an exceptional people and nation in response to circumstances?
These are difficult questions. I’ve been pondering them for a while—at least ten years, since I’ve been writing the Documenting America series. I’m learning more and more as I do the research on this. In addition to that, I do a lot of research into genealogy—American genealogy. My first genealogy book dealt mainly with the years 1830-1910, long after American traits would have been established. My second genealogy book dealt with the years 1640-1710, right in the foundational period. As I wrote that genealogy/family history book, my thoughts began to focus on that question: what differentiated the USA from other nations?
As I researched to finish this work, I came upon some Massachusetts Bay Colony documents that led me to concluding one of the characteristics I’ll discuss in this series.
Added to researching my books is a love of history and an ability to self-study and learn. I love to read, and history is about my favorite topic to read. Since I started writing history books it’s difficult to read history for simple enjoyment or personal learning. Still, I try.
I don’t know that I’ve finished my thought process on all of this, but I believe I have identified three items that are in our nature that made a difference in our journey to exceptionalism.
The consent of the governed. Another explanation for this is self-determination. We decide what type of government we want and establish it.
The common man as a landowner. A big difference in the USA is everyone—just about everyone—owned land. This gives a huge change in perspective on government.
Peaceful transition of power. When we change leaders—with two notable exceptions—the transition happens easily and peacefully.
These are probably not the only things that have contributed to making the USA into the nation that it is, but I see them as critical components.
In three posts coming soon (maybe not next, but soon), I’ll cover these three factors. By the time I finish them, I may have another one or two posts to make in the series. I hope many will read these posts, and consider how these helped to make us what we are.
My 1954 copy of this book has no dust jacket, and the spine is too faded to read. It came from my parent’s house. Without the dust jacket I can’t tell if it’s a first edition, though it was published in 1954.
Having finished a book back in March, and taking a lot of time working my way through my magazine pile, I also began glancing on my shelves for what to read next. I found two different non-fiction books that looked good and moved them from bookshelf to reading pile. It was really time for reading a novel, however, so I went back to the shelves.
In the garage, on a shelf that contains hundreds of books slated for donation or sale, I found a volume that looked intriguing. It’s Love Is Eternal by Irving Stone. The spine is worn on this 1954 print and I could hardly read the title on it. Opening to the title page I saw the subtitle is “A Novel About Mary Todd and Abraham Lincoln”. Now that sounded interesting. Lincoln is my favorite president; he naturally featured prominently in my non-fiction Civil War book. So I took this from the shelf and decided it would be my next read.
I must interject here that I am not related to Mary Todd, at least not that I know. If I am, it’s more than eight generations back someplace in the Old World. I’ve never looked for a connection back there. I probably should.
464 pages and 36 sittings later and the book is read. Wow, that’s a long time you say. Yes, just under 13 pages per sitting. That was about all the time I felt like I could devote to reading during this period, as it included my intense research and writing of a family history book, my wife’s hospitalization, and a period much devoted to decluttering. It wasn’t due to the book itself, but to life circumstances.
What a good book! Stone goes to great lengths to be faithful to the historical record. Based on the title I was expecting it to alternate between Abraham’s and Mary’s point of view, but it was all from Mary’s. That’s good, though unexpected. It shows Mary as a pampered southern belle, her daddy’s favorite. She socializes with all the important Kentucky politicians. She follows two sisters from Lexington KY to Springfield IL, where she will perhaps find a husband. She meets Stephen Douglas and other important men, but then meets Abraham Lincoln and others fade from her view.
Stone spends a lot of time on the early years, and progressively less on later years. All major events of Lincoln’s political career are covered, but in fewer words for the presidential years. I suspect Stone thought Lincoln’s presidency has been covered in great depth and that the early years needed more coverage. The book ends with Mary leaving the White House a few weeks after Lincoln’s death.
If I had to pick at some things that I didn’t like, I can find only two. First, I would have liked to have some data provided, perhaps a listing of the parents, siblings, and perhaps the grandparents of Abraham and Mary. What with parents, step-parents, siblings, half-siblings, step-siblings, etc, I sometimes was confused. For Mary, especially, being one of 16 siblings, I couldn’t keep them straight. A timeline for each of them would have helped, as would have a couple of simple maps, of Lexington and Springfield.
Second, I wish Stone hadn’t spent so much time on Mary’s clothes. He constantly talked about the gowns she wore, giving color and style. Who cares? I suppose that helped to develop her character and the situations she lived in, but it got kind of tiring after a while.
So, I pulled this book from the sale/donation pile, but is it really a keeper? I think my wife would enjoy it and I’m going to encourage her to read it. Meanwhile, from my deculttering and organizing work, I found two other Irving Stone books in my library about president’s wives: Those Who Love (Abigail Adams) and The President’s Lady (Rachel Jackson). I also have a first edition of his book They Also Ran, about those who ran for the presidency as nominees of their party but never won, which I read decades ago and remember it as being excellent. I also read (from a library copy) Stone’s 1980 book The Origin about Charles Darwin, also excellent. So, I think I’ll keep this and have a mini-collection of Irving Stone books. Whether I get to read them or not is another question.
When Dad set type for the “Stars and Stripes” newspaper in Europe during World War 2, he suggested this for the headline of the VE Day special edition, and the editor agreed. A typesetter chose the headline, 75 yeas ago today. Well, the type was probably set 75 years ago yesterday, but let’s not quibble.
I have been trying to find something to write about today. In recent posts I’ve covered decluttering, which I could write more on but is actually boring if covered too much. Who wants to know about what I’ve thrown out today?
I could write about helping a fellow writer with a used computer, allowing her to write more efficiently during these times when she can’t get to the places where she used to use a computer. That wouldn’t be bad, and perhaps I’ll cover that in a future post.
I could write about The Teachings and how I’m doing with it. Again, I’ve written about that several times. While I’m making progress, I don’t really have much new to report.
Dad at the mobile Linotype unit in Italy in 1943. He was within sound of the guns, subject to enemy bombers if they ever came over. Note the pin-up girl on the machine!
None of those sounded good, so yesterday and earlier this morning I didn’t write anything. Then I realized what day this is. May 8. VE Day. Victory in Europe in World War 2. This was the day that the Stars and Stripes newspaper used the headline Dad suggested. He was setting type for the S&S in Marseilles, France. On May 7 the news came that the Germans were surrendering. The next day would be the end of the war in Europe. A special edition of the paper was called for. Dad suggested this for the momentous headline, and the editor agreed.
The S&S were put out in several places in Europe. Each place had its own editor, and each place put out a different newspaper, the stories being what the editor chose as being applicable to that area. So this was the headline from Marseilles, not from Paris, London, or Rome.
So, 75 years ago today, a Linotype operator chose the headline for the newspaper that marked the end of fighting in the European theater.
An excellent read for anyone interested in the early historical accounts or the 1988-1991 era.
In our garage is a large bookshelf, scavenged years ago when the company was downsizing, that hold the books we trot out whenever we have a garage sale. I finish a book, if it’s not a keeper, I bring it to the shelf and stuff it in somewhere.
As I did that recently, and looking for a new book to read, my eyes fell on The Commanders by Bob Woodward. I knew I’d never read it so pulled it from the shelf. It had belonged to my father-in-law, a book we brought back from his house after his death. The front page included a discussion of an illness he was going through, then in the book he had made much marginalia.
The book interested me because I understood it to be about Desert Storm, a time in history of special importance to me. I figured, knowing Woodward, it was an expose of everything our leaders did wrong. That turned out to false, however. It is more of a simple “here’s how our military operated in that point in time.”
Written mostly in 1989-90 and published in 1991, Woodward describes it as a mixture between journalism and history, a bit more history than newspaper accounts (because of the access he was given to principals) but not quite history with hindsight and full access to documents.
I found the book engaging and informative. The writing style is excellent. Being ex-military, Woodward understands things such as chain of command, relationships between branches of the armed services, and how the military and civilian leadership of our defense establishment works. Being an investigative reporter he knows how to dig out the story.
And dig out the story he did. I won’t go into a lot of details, but Woodward gives us lots of information about Bush, Cheney, Powell, and others involved in using the military as part of our national security strategy. He seems to have had access to Colin Powell and possibly Dick Cheney. These two key figures feature prominently in the book.
Woodward doesn’t paint any one in a bad light in the book. He treats people fairly, explaining where they were, who they talked with, how they made decisions, how they dealt with the press during the run up to the Panama invasion in 1989 and the development of Desert Shield in 1990-91. It ends with the first few attacks the morning that Desert Storm hit an unbelieving Iraq on January 17, 1991.
This is a good book and I recommend it to anyone interested in the early historical accounts of the 1988-91 era. Is it a keeper? Alas, no. Not because of the quality, but because I have too many books and I don’t expect to ever read it again, nor do I expect my wife will want to read it or my future heirs will thank me for leaving it to them to deal with.
So, I will remove the page with the personal note, put that in my father-in-law’s papers, and put the book back in it’s slot on that bookshelf in the garage to await the next sale or donation. The next reader will just have to put up with his marginalia.
I’m not totally over my cold, but it’s better, and I’m back in the land of the living. So, here’s the next post in the series.
Doctor Luke’s Assistant ended in May 66 A.D., just as the Jewish revolt was breaking out. In DLA, no actual battles occurred, but unrest was growing.
The Teachings begin two weeks after the end of DLA. War breaks out before the end of the year and will continue until 70 A.D. This is the timeframe for my new book, so have to work in events of the wr into the book, event making them part of the plot. The main characters will be going here and there in Israel—and maybe even to other nations (still working that out), so I need to get things right. I can’t have the main character confronting Roman soldiers in Caesarea when the fighting at that point of the war was taking place in Galilee.
But where do you get information about the war, information that will give a specific timeline? I have a number of history books on Israel. Each of them covers the war, but none of them give a timeline. They say this happened first, that happened second, etc. But none give much of a timeline. Various online sources weren’t much different. I ran into an online Jewish encyclopedia recently. Perhaps, when I fully explore that I’ll find more info, but an initial look tells me it doesn’t have what I’m looking for.
That leaves me with the works of Josephus. Written by Josephus about 15 years after the war ended, The War of the Jews was the most extensive history written about this war. Josephus was a Jewish general on the Israeli side who lost a battle, was captured by the Romans, and ended up on the Roman side. As a result, his history is suspect. Did he skew things to favor himself? Does he treat the Jews more negatively than is justified and the Romans more positively, even though he’s a Jew?
Back in the late 90s or early 2000s, we bought a four-volume edition of Josephus’ works. Now they are available on-line in a number of places. I’m glad to have the print edition, however, as I can extensively mark in it, and am doing so.
Alas, the timeline is difficult to establish in Josephus’ War. He gives a few dates, even down to the day, but in an archaic dating system. I’m reading slowly in it. I’m underlining. I’m taking notes. As it is the best reference available, it’s what I’ll use most.
I can ignore Josephus’ qualitative statements and just focus on timelines. Where was the fighting going on as 66 A.D. turned to 67 A.D.? What Roman general might my characters have interacted with? Where was loss of Jewish life greatest, should I decide to kill off any characters?
So many decisions to make. I want events to track with history. I want my characters to interact with that history accurately. It will slow down my writing to do this, but that’s how I want to do it.
The twelve apostles’ importance to the growing church cannot be over emphasized.
In my last post, I began a series of posts about my novel-in-progress, The Teachings, saying I would make several posts to explain what my intentions are for the series and for this particular book.
Today I’ll discuss the underlying Christian document. In Greek its title is The Didache. This translates to The Teachings. That’s the short title. The longer title is The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. It is relatively short, shorter than the Gospel of Mark, the shortest of the four canonical gospels.
What are the contents? You would think from the long title that it was a list of things the apostles said as the church formed in the years are Jesus died. The gospels told of Jesus’ life and teachings. Acts told about the formation and initial growth of the church. The Didache then gathered the teachings of the apostles. Peter said this, John said that, Matthew said this, Bartholomew said that.
Here’s what the full title looks like in Greek.
But no, The Didache doesn’t quote from the apostles. Rather, it is a type of church manual. One book I read calls it the earliest church manual. It begins with a section called The Two Ways, speaking of the way a Christian should live. The two ways are called the way of life and the way of death.
After this it talks about false teachers, food offered to idols, baptism, fasting, the Lord’s prayer, and communion. A section deals with teachers, apostles, and prophets who travel among the churches and how they should behave and how the churches should greet and provide for them. Additional topics are meeting on the Lord’s day, the offices of bishops and deacons, and being watchful for the second coming of Christ.
When was it written? The relative simplicity of church government suggest it was written at an early time. The ecclesiastical hierarchy developed slowly and became burdensome sometime in the 2nd Century. The Didache seems unaware of that system. I read quite a bit about this. Scholars have suggested any time from 60 A.D. to 180 A.D. Those that favor the later date suggests that the simple church structure was the writer’s attempt to show how it was at the time of the apostles. Those who favor the earlier date point to the absence of government structure as evidence that the date of writing has to be early.
For The Teachings, I chose the earlier date. The book is set from 66 A.D to about 74 A.D. (I won’t be sure of when the book ends until I finish writing it; it may end closer to 71 A.D.
Who wrote it? No one knows, and I’ve seen no speculation about that. The two ways section is very close to a part of the Epistle of Barnabas, a non-canonical writing thought to be from the first century. Other parts of The Didiche echo other writings from outside the Bible, but nothing seems to suggest who wrote it. Most likely that will remain a mystery.
Bryennios found The Didache while rummaging in a Turkish library.
How has history treated it? That this book was once an important part of the church is evidenced by mentions of it by church fathers in the late 2nd Century up into the 4th Century. However, many years later and it was lost. No one read it; no one copied it; no one mentioned it any more. Why would it fall out of favor? Perhaps because it wasn’t considered authoritative enough to be included in the New Testament (though some early lists of Christian scriptures do include it). Possibly the primitiveness of church government made it passe once the structured church had a complicated government. Why go to the trouble of copying a book that no one used any more?
The Didache was thus known to have existed, but we had no copies of it (save for a fragment or two) until 1873. A Greek Orthodox official was looking around in a library in Turkey and found a scroll that bore a date of 1056 A.D. Several books were written on this scroll, including the complete text of The Didache. The finder published the text 1883, and within three years the collective scholars of the church, in the Middle East, Germany, Great Britain, and the USA were in an uproar, arguing about it, trying to figure out its place in the church and composition time.
For this book of mine, assuming it was put together around 66 to 71 A.D., who wrote it? Scholars see it as a composite document, not written at one time, maybe not even by one person, and perhaps not at the same place. That is the premise I’m going with. One man will primarily responsible for its assembly, but the contents will come from many places. I may even write in a delay in issuing it.
In my next blog post I’ll write about what was going on in the world at the time my man is working on The Didiche.
It was sad, it was sad, it was sad when the big ship went down…. We used to sing that in boy scouts.
Through miscellaneous readings, and history-type TV shows, I know a fair amount about the Titanic disaster. I had never read a complete book on it, however. I bought The Titanic: Disaster of a Century by Wyn Craig Wade. I had seen this on a bookshelf somewhere, read a few pages in it during an idle moment, and decided it would be good to have. Amazon is my friend, and I soon had a new copy, purchased with a gift certificate.
The book did not in any way prove a disappointment. It was originally published in 1980, before the discovery of the wreck later in that decade. This was an updated version, published as a centenary edition in 2012. Mr. Wade had died in the meantime, and his daughter, Barbara Wade, completed and published this updated edition.
It starts with the news that the Titanic had struck ice and was in trouble. It followed the early reports: first the bare news of contact with ice, followed by reports of damage, followed by reports of all souls rescued and being brought to Halifax, followed by reports that Titanic was being towed to Halifax with all souls on board, followed by the Titanic sank but all souls were on another ship heading for New York.
The book spent a long couple of chapters on this, showing the lack of information and disinformation. Eventually the rescue ship, the Carpathia, arrives in New York and the truth becomes known, how 2/3 of the souls aboard had been lost, how the lifeboats had not been fully loaded, etc.
Into this steps the senator from Michigan, William Alden Smith. He rushes to New York City with a subpoena for J Bruce Ismay, president of the White Star Lines and one of those rescued, who was hoping to skedaddle back to England and avoid an American inquiry. The chapters moved into the hearings held, first in New York then in Washington DC. Through these hearings the story of the disaster came out.
I thought that was an interesting literary technique by Wade. Rather than follow the ship from its points of departure in the British Isles, it concentrated on the decisions that contributed to the disaster. How the crew hadn’t been well trained and didn’t know the ship. How a lifeboat drill had been cancelled the morning of the last day. How ice warnings conveyed by other ships had been noted and ignored by the captain who had never had a bad thing happen in 40 years at sea. How various vessels responded to Titanic’s SOS. How unregulated wireless “traffic” hindered rescue attempts and news forwarding. How the Californian was within sight of Titanic but did nothing to help, their captain apparently not really understanding what was going on.
The book is well-written, well-organized. I enjoyed it immensely, and read the 318 pages in thirteen sittings. I give it 5-stars, and will likely do a review on Amazon.
Is it a keeper, however? I have too many books, and need to begin to get rid of some. I’m not yet ready to get rid of this, however. I’ll pull another book from the shelf, one I’m sure I’ll never re-read, let it go, and keep this.
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.
Sometimes I pick up a used book and place it in my reading pile. Years may go by before I pick it up and read it. I don’t know how many times I never get to a book, or it will be years before I’m looking for something to read, dig deep in my pile, find something, and decide “This is the one for right now.”
A good book. If it weren’t falling apart, it might find a place in my library. Difficult call.
That was the case with Jews, God and History by Max I Dimont. When I pulled this from the pile, I found no label on it. Inside was a very faded receipt. I can just make out that I the receipt says I bought three books at Helping Hands, a local thrift store with a great books section, paid a total of $2.00 cash for all three. The purchase was at 10:42 a.m., but the date is too faded to read.
This is a mass-market paperback with cheap binding. While I was reading it, it fell apart into two sections. So much for such books printed in 1962.
This was an informative book. Dimont is a skillful writer. He gives much information, not statistics and data, but sweeping narrative about the Jews throughout over four millennia: where they were, what influenced them, who they influenced, what their motivations were. In 421 pages of 10-point font, Dimont gives a comprehensive documentation of this amazing people.
I have a couple of criticisms of the book, however. By the time I was done with it (two months elapsed between my starting and finishing it), I had pretty well forgotten what had come at the beginning. In other words, while I was impressed as I read, the writing didn’t stick with me. I sometimes, when I finish a book, go back and re-read the Introduction to see if the writer achieved whatever goals were stated there. In this case I haven’t yet done that, and don’t think I will.
My other criticism is that the book is totally unsourced. Along with the information given, Dimont makes sweeping judgments on the why of the history, not just the what. Here’s an example of one of those:
Like a Freudian libido flowing through the unconscious, attaching itself to previous psychic experiences, the Haskala flowed through the body of Judaism, attaching itself to former Jewish values and creating new ones. It attached itself to Hebrew and Yiddish, creating a new literature. It attached itself to Jewish religion and created Jewish existentialism. It attached itself to politics and created Zionism. Zionism fused the Jews in Eastern and Western Europe with the Jews in the United States and created the new State of Israel. This vast transformation and fusion began with a few Talmudic students fighting the Hasidists, who were preaching a return to primitivism of feeling as a way of relating themselves with God.
To me, such broad statements need to be sourced. Where did these ideas come from? Are they the author’s interpretation? They are stated as fact when they seem to be opinion. I would have liked it to be clearer.
Those criticisms aside, I thoroughly enjoyed the book, if being maddened at it a few times. I certainly don’t regret taking time to read it. It will not, however, have a permanent place on my bookshelf. I don’t think it would even if it hadn’t fallen apart.
However, while the book is unsourced, it does have an extensive Bibliography. Pages and pages of published works are listed, many of them look inviting. I’m tempted to tear these pages from the weak binding and find a permanent place for them in my library, being a list of potentially valuable sources for future research. The only thing making me think I should do that is the thought: How will I ever find those pages again?
I’d been wanting to read this for some time. It finally bubbled up to the top of the reading pile.
It wasn’t too long ago that I reviewedMark Lane’s Plausible Denial, a book about the JFK assassination. This was the first thing of Mark Lane’s I had read. I’d heard his name often, as he was an early critic of the Warren Commission often cited by other writers. I never read his first book on the subject, until now.
Rush to Judgment was published in 1966. Aside from articles in magazines, I believe this was the first book published critical of the Commission. Lane was in a unique place, having been hired by Marguerite Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother, to function essentially as Oswald’s defense attorney during Commission deliberations. That’s a simplification. But it put Lane in some meetings and hearings, and allowed him to see things, that were denied to most not directly associated with the Commission’s work.
Lane, who died in 2016, was a lawyer. Much of Rush to Judgment deals with the minutia of legal issues. He criticized the Commission for not following rules of evidence and rules of cross-examination as you would have at a trial. He looked at evidence that law enforcement agencies had given to the Commission and found it wanting. For example, Lane spends a lot of time on the paraffin test applied to Oswald to show if he had recently fired a gun. The police said the test was positive, whereas Lane showed the inconsistency in the test and was critical of police statements, even before the test results were available, that said the test would be found positive.
No witnesses were subject to cross-examination during Commission hearings. Lane took transcripts of the testimony of many witnesses and picked it apart. A woman who saw the murderer of police officer J.D. Tippet is alleged to have identified Oswald as the man, but her statements and response to a police line-up were inconclusive. To Lane, she described a different man. While no official cross-examinations were make, Lane showed how lawyers for the Commission did critically question witnesses who told something other than what the Commission’s foreordained conclusion was.
Lane was critical of the witness list. Many witnesses were never questioned; others were questioned only by the Commission’s lawyers. These were witnesses who were in Dealy Plaza, or who knew Oswald, or who knew Jack Ruby, or who had other information about the three murders (Kennedy, Tippet, and Oswald). He makes a good case that the Commission’s work was sloppy and incomplete and that, had the rules of a courtroom been followed, the Commission never could have come to the conclusion it did.
The book is good. A couple of times Lane heads down rabbit holes, spending too much time on small items. A number of times Lane uses legal vocabulary that requires a dictionary. I looked a few of those up, but further into the book just skipped over them, doing the best I could based on the context. The organization of the book was fine, as was the length and the quality of the writing.
As this is an early book in JFK assassination research, it lacks some details that other authors brought out. One has to remember when it was written, however, in order form a judgment on the book.
As I have accumulated a fairly significant, though far from comprehensive, collection of JFK assassination books, I will keep this one. Will I ever reread it? I don’t know for sure, but maybe.
