These bloomed all December through January, dropping their flowers during February and March. Here they are blooming again.
I’m sad to report that progress on my work-in-progress, The Teachings, has fallen behind. In fact, I’ve done nothing on it since Monday. Instead, I’ve filled those hours with something equally pleasurable: genealogy research.
One of my goals for 2020 was to get back to work on, and perhaps publish, the book on Stephen Cross and Elizabeth Cheney of Ispwich. Elizabeth is Lynda’s 8x-great aunt on her dad’s side. Her father, John Cheney of Newbury, will be the subject of a future book. I have lots on him, but want to get more on his children. Elizabeth is the youngest of his 12 children (10 lived to adulthood; 9 of those had children), so I decided to start with her. Three or four years ago I began the research and realized I had so much stuff that it would make a book by itself.
I started on that book, got it up to about 60 pages, and quit. I had done the easy part of the research by then, with some hard slogging to go. This week I worked on the hard slogging.
And I made significant progress. On the book part, I deleted duplicate and most extraneous material. I expanded the bibliography. I created a couple of side bars. I like the look of it.
The research I picked up is into Stephen and Elizabeth’s children, as well as Stephen’s siblings. Elizabeth’s siblings I have down, but Stephen’s are a puzzle. That’s where I found lots of disagreement among researchers, and information added that seems to have no basis in documents. I really want to get this right. Stephen’s siblings are tangential to the book, but, again, I want it right.
What do I have for my four days of effort? A better organized book. A more correct and complete book. A better understanding of Stephen’s and Elizabeth’s life. An expanded bibliography. And a ton more work to do.
But, I’ve enjoyed every minute of it. Each day I left my research for a little while and went to the sun room. There the Christmas cacti are blooming again. Well, at least some of them are. They and the many other plants in the room provide enjoyment for my reading. At times I look up at the blooms, or at the other plants, and just enjoy them.
When will I get back on The Teachings? At this time I have no idea. Once I start genealogy research I just have to let it run its course till I the interest wanes. It might be another week, perhaps sooner. The fact that I’m working on the book at the same time makes me think this will last a while.
That was yesterday, a rainy day. And it was wonderful.
My plans for the day were to go to Wal-Mart around 7:30 a.m. to get groceries and prescriptions at the pharmacy when it opened at 9. Alas, at 7:00 a.m. a hard rain was in progress, and radar said it would be thus for hours. So I put off Wal-Mart till another day and went to The Dungeon for my work.
That work consisted of: stock trading, writing in my work-in-progress, filing. I didn’t have much stock trading to do so I mainly watched the market. For The Teachings, I decided to take a step back from writing and check my timeline. It seemed that I had Adam and Augustus in leapfrogging scenes that didn’t make sense. I mostly finished that, though I might look at it again today. While I added only a few words, as I read earlier chapters in the book, I corrected typos and phrasing, which felt good.
As the rain continued, I came upstairs for more coffee and went to the sun room. I alternately watched the rain, the birds at the feeders, and read. My current read is an historical novel from the 1950s about Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd. I’m now 32 pages into this 460 page book and enjoying it.
As the afternoon went on the rain began to taper off. The Wal-Mart run looked promising. So Lynda and I hopped in the car and got there about 3:30 p.m. The parking lot looked normal for that time on a weekday. The store wasn’t particularly crowded. We were able to get almost everything we needed. The lines at the checkout weren’t long. The pharmacy was crowded but they had lots of workers, so I was in an out without delay. As we were ready to leave the store it was raining again. I went for the car and pulled up to the front, we loaded in our groceries, and off we went to top off the gas tank then home. Through all of this we were more or less able to maintain social distancing. A most enjoyable trip.
At home in the evening I did the usual. Heated leftovers. We had small helpings of a frozen dessert. As we watched news all evening, I pulled up a genealogy book to work on. This is a maybe-I-will-maybe-I-won’t work on it project. It’s on my to-do list for 2020, to look at in March. So I did that. I spent the evening editing and researching. My main research for this was done in 2015-2017, and the thing has sat idle since then. Lot’s more records and the research of others could be on line now. So I looked for sources, made some notes about what needs to be added to the book and about sources I need to read. Soon I’ll develop a work plan and decide what to do about this thing. Whether this book ever comes to be or not, genealogy is so enjoyable to me that the time spent was uplifting.
So here it is Friday. I’m in The Dungeon, into my workday. The clouds still obscure the sun but there’s no rain in the forecast. The market is up a little, though the gains don’t look sustainable. I’m registered for a webinar later today. The Teachings is open before me in Word, waiting to me add to it. The neighborhood streets are calling to me to come walk on them. The sun room beckons.
And, a curious, minor event asks me to watch. Three of the four Christmas cacti in the sun room have new buds on them. I noticed them about two weeks ago and have been watching them. One bud started blooming yesterday. This is an extra treat, one that I’ll watch again today, and enjoy.
Well, this weekend was certainly different than last.
I don’t know that I ever formally announced this book on the blog. Maybe I’ll do that on Friday.
I have a list of blog posts I intend to write on. The problem is, each on the list takes a fair amount of forethought. I can’t just open the post box and write about rugged individualism, for example, without some research.
So, that list of posts is going to have to wait. I’ll just write about the weekend, as I did last Monday. Friday afternoon, as we were waiting for company to arrive, I received a message to say my order from Amazon had arrived. Great, I thought. That’s my copies of Documenting America: Making The Constitution. Went to the front door—to find nothing. Checked the notice again and saw that they went to my old office in Bentonville. E-mailed the receptionist there, and sure enough that’s were the package was. Even though company was en-route, Lynda and I hopped in the car to go fetch it. Took an hour in craft fair weekend traffic.
We had a good time visiting with our company, one of Lynda’s cousins. Talked all evening then again Saturday morning, and they were off to their next stop. Just as they left a light rain began falling. It continued for an hour or so, making everything outside wet, too wet to do the outside work I had planned for the day.
Confined to inside activities, I did paperwork tasks for a while, such as updating the checkbook and budget, as well as organizing the miscellaneous receipts and filing them. Food for meals was already prepared and waiting (meaning leftovers), so there was nothing else to do but read and write. Well, I suppose I could have cleaned, but that will be a next week task. The carpet in our main living area is desperately in need of shampooing. A day of vacuuming and dusting prep work, then maybe tomorrow I’ll begin shampooing. Well, if we have all the supplies, that is, which I believe we do.
It’s selling well in person. ‘Twould be nice to have some on-line sales as well.
Sunday I taught Life Group, Chapter 1 of Acts Of Faith. I sold the last three copies of it but have more on order, hopefully to arrive on Wednesday. Sold 26 of them from my order, but still no sales on-line. Alas. I napped some Sunday afternoon, continuing to read in Mere Christianity, and in the evening in my research into the Didache. The day concluded with another storm line and, after going to bed, a phone call from the county alert system saying we were in a tornado watch area. That soon passed, and I went back to bed and slept well.
Oh, yes, walked 2 1/4 miles on Saturday and 3 miles on Sunday. My weight is down a little, and my blood sugars have been nicely under control.
Today will be a writing day, as storms overnight will make it too wet to work outside. Tonight we eat with my cousin who moved to Bella Vista, and get to know him and his wife some. Hopefully I’ll be one or two chapters further in the Leader’s Guide for Acts Of Faith.
The view from my ladder, five steps up. The limb looks large in this photo, but that’s deceiving. It was only 3 to 4 inches diameter.
After writing about a difficult weekend last weekend, I had a good week. That blah Monday turned out to be restful, and I recovered. It was almost as if my day of rest was Monday instead of Sunday. I hope they all won’t be like that as I teach this lesson series. I teach again this Sunday, so we’ll see how it goes.
I did some good work on the Leader’s Guide for Acts Or Faith. It’s far from finished, but I feel much better about it than I did even five days ago. I took my notes prepared for teaching last Sunday—the Introduction to the book—and worked them into that chapter of the Leader’s Guide. I went on to two more chapters, and am now well-along on Chapter 11.
I attended critique group Wednesday evening. We had five writers present, no visitors. Four of us shared, and we had good discussions. I shared the first four pages of “Tango Delta Foxtrot”, the next short story in my Sharon Williams Fonsesca series. I’m 2,000 words into it, heading to somewhere between 4,000 and 8,000. I hope to work a little on that in the days ahead.
I began a new activity in my daily routine: an hour or so of yard work in the late morning. Perhaps I should say I resumed that activity, for I was doing that last spring. After the late-August storm, I worked on the wood lot north of our house, clearing away the debris left after two large trees fell. Now it looks almost like a wooded, leaf-covered park. I’m now doing the same with the woodlot on the south side. This had two smaller trees down, and much deadfall from normal tree life. This is actually a much bigger job. I’ve spent four mornings on it.
On Wednesday, with all the large limbs removed, I decided to get up on a ladder and cut away a broken limb on a tree close to the house. I’m sure certain family members would be aghast at my leaning a ladder against a tree I was cutting on and then getting five steps up on that ladder. But, it was just a 3 to 4 inch limb, nothing major Having only a small, folding pruning saw that would fit the place where I wanted to cut. I got it done, taking frequent rests. It was a task accomplished that make me feel good about my work.
Speaking of tasks accomplished, on Wednesday I had this comment on my Facebook author’s page.
“Preserve The Revelation” is terrific! Each book in the series stands alone. So many authors constantly “explain” what happened in the previous book or you won’t understand the story, which I find irritating. Watching for #3 publication!”
Good feedback on this. Though fourth in the series chronologically, it is the second published, in March 2017.
It’s great to get positive feedback, especially from one who’s now reading a third book of mine. This spurred me on to work a little on the third book in the series (numbers 1, 2, and 4 currently published; she’s reading #4). For over a week I’ve been reading for research and making good progress, learning a lot. Wednesday, after reading that comment, I spent an hour making an outline of book #3, tentatively titled The Teachings. It stands at just a notebook page in length, but it’s a start.
I don’t intend on writing this book until I finish “TDF”, and perhaps one more short story in the Danny Tompkins series. Perhaps a December start is most likely. Between now and then I’ll search my various paper piles for two or three pages of notes I made earlier this year on the book, each time starting from scratch. I’ll see what my earlier thoughts were and whether I remembered them and worked them into my outline.
Speaking of various paper piles, we have company coming today for an overnight stay, one of Lynda’s cousins and her husband. The clean-up of the house and yard started yesterday, and will consume much of today before they arrive. The paper piles have to go, along with other clutter.
So, I end this. I hope all who read this had a good, productive, satisfying week, and will experience the same in the weekend ahead. See you in my post on Monday.
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.
Most of my posts lately have been related to my immediate works-in-progress or my other reading, with an occasional dabble in an inspirational post. I have a thought for the latter, based on study for yesterday’s Life Group lesson. I’m not quite ready for that yet.
So, I’ll stick with what I intended to post about today, which is my current reading in the writings of Thomas Carlyle. It’s been a while since I’ve written about him. “Carlyle” is a category for my blog posts, so you could easily check and see what I’ve written about him before.
I have published one book about him, a gathering and reprinting of his articles written 1820-1823 for the Edinburgh Encyclopedia. So far as I know, my book is the only time all his articles for that publication have been gathered in one publication.
I’ve been slowly, over several years, working on two other books about Carlyle. One is about his book Chartism. The other is a Comprehensive Chronological Composition Bibliography. Both of these works have stalled, mostly because they are simply lower on my writing priority list than others. Perhaps that will change one day, but it’s the case for now.
Carlyle changed from being a compassionate man to a promoter of slavery. How that change came about is the subject of my Carlyle studies.
But I’m back to reading him. From 1827 to 1833 Carlyle’s main writing was a series of articles for the Edinburgh Review and other literary magazines. Emerson gathered these and published them in three volumes around 1839. It was so popular in the USA that a British edition soon followed. Today they are considered one of Carlyle’s major works.
I’ve read a couple of the articles before, and started a couple more, but never got very far with it what have come to be called Carlyle’s Miscellanies. I haven’t wanted to put money into buying them in print (or e-book), and had never found an e-copy of good quality of a public domain version. About two weeks ago I went looking for them again, and, lo and behold, I found an e-book re-issue of the essays, of excellent quality, all in one volume, I think.
I’m reading them on my smart phone. That’s not a totally new experience, since I recently read Locke’s Two Treatises of Government on my smart phone. Still, reading books on phones will be somewhat new for a while. I’m enjoying it there, however. I turn the phone sideways and slightly enlarge each page to fill the window. So far I’ve read two of the essays, the first two in chronological order: “Jean Paul Friedrich Richter” and “State of German Literature”, both from the Edinburgh Review in 1827. I finished the second one last night.
Why am I doing this? Why distract myself from my writing or research for my writing. I can only plead a reduction in sanity, or perhaps an increase in delusion. I sometimes think myself a scholar and want to read something that either is or seems to be scholarly. Carlyle seems to fit. And, in case I ever do get around to finishing that Chartism book, these readings might actually play a part in it.
The Richter article was easy enough to understand, and I found it informative and even enjoyable. The German Literature article was tedious, even boring. I think this is where I bogged down before in my reading of his essays. The book has some good parts to it. I think I would grasp more with another reading. Carlyle, like so many writers of his time, wished to write poetry along with prose. He left a number of poems to us, none of which are highly thought of. I may pull out some of his thoughts on German poetry, really about poetry in general, and see if I couldn’t make essays out of them.
Queued up on my phone is his third essay in the book, “Life and Writings of Werner”. I don’t believe I’ve rad this one before. I don’t know Werner, so am not looking forward to reading it, except to know it will perhaps sate my need to be reading something intellectual. If I can get through this third essay, there’s hope that I will get through the entire book.
Meanwhile, should you buy and read my previous book on Carlyle? I’m really just an editor in that book. I wouldn’t recommend it, not unless you want to make study of Carlyle a significant intellectual enterprise. If you do, be forewarned that, after publication, I found an embarrassing error in the chapter on Pascal. I corrected it in the e-book, but it remains in the print book, awaiting my taking the half-hour needed to make the correction and republish. Seeing as I have to migrate all my print books from CreateSpace to Amazon KDP, I’m planning to get that correction done during the migration.
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.
John Locke significantly influenced key leaders of the American Revolution.
Approximately two years ago, when I began reading in earnest as research for Documenting America: Making The Constitution Edition, I read something, not in a source document, about the Founding Fathers being interested in the writings of John Locke, particularly his two Treatises on Government, published anonymously in 1689. I figured I’d better read them, as background for my other research. So, I found a good quality electronic copy (for free), downloaded it, and began reading.
Let me say two things to start. My reading of this was probably not in an optimum way. I read in fits and starts wherever I had a few moments of waiting with my phone, the device I read the whole thing on; and I probably wasn’t at my best as I read it. I don’t know that I retained much about the two treatises, and will someday have to read them again.
This post will be only on Locke’s Part 1. Part 2 will follow in another post in the not-too-distant future.
Filmer is less well known that Lock. Perhaps Locke’s debunking of him was effective, or so history has judged.
Part 1 was…strange. Somehow the Preface didn’t stick with me. I got into the book, and Locke is referring to “Sir Robert”, giving quotes and page numbers. I had no idea who he was referring to. At some point I had to go back and re-read the preface. Locke referred to Sir Robert Filmer, who had written a book named Patriarcha: On the Natural Power of Kings, published in 1680. In this, Filmer laid out the case for the divine right of kings and an absolute monarchy. He got some of his material from Thomas Hobbes in a 1651 book named Leviathan.
Locke said his purpose in writing his Part 1 was “to establish the throne of our greater restorer, or present King William; to make good his title…” Locke liked William, taking note that he came to the throne in what is called the Glorious Revolution of 1688. His mother was the daughter of King Charles 1st of England, so he had some place in the royal order of succession. He married his cousin, Mary, daughter of the Duke of York. William and Mary came to the throne as joint monarchs, and after Mary died in 1694 William reigned alone until his death in 1702. Some thought him to be an illegitimate king.
It’s not my purpose to go into this history, but a little of it is essential background for Locke’s Part 1. From the wording of the Preface, it’s as if Locke had a foregone conclusion and was trying to justify it with this book. However, I don’t think that’s the case. He looked at Filmer’s work, was horrified by it, and decided to refute it. That also had the result of justifying William’s reign.
As I said, the book was strange to me. The language and structure, being archaic, made the reading somewhat difficult. It seems Filmer’s argument for the divine right of kings/absolute monarchy came from the Bible. He believed Adam was born king, was thus king of all his progeny, and passed that right through his progeny. Locke gave many arguments against this, using different scenarios to refute Filmer’s different points.
Except, they all sounded the same to me, these different points. Filmer said Adam, by right of being first born of all creation, had an absolute right to rule over first his children, then their children, then that was passed down to them and their children. Locke said no, essentially that was ridiculous. That once a child reached age of majority, or responsibility, the father no longer had any right to rule over him.
One thing I did take away from this Treatise, though which I was had been better developed, is the concept of man is either born a slave (per Filmer) or born free (per Locke). It’s a continuum, with slave on one side and free on the other. I’m assuming Filmer chose the slave side, and hence, as slaves, all mankind is servant to whoever holds the legitimate kingship. Locke rejected that. Maybe he did state the continuum thought clearly, and in my diminished reading capacity I missed it. I’m going to look for that again for sure.
Over and over this went, for 200 pages. Shades of claims by Filmer and counter-claims by Locke. It started to all run together. Perhaps, had I read in better conditions, I would have felt it more informative. No, informative isn’t the right word, but I can’t think of a better one. I didn’t take as much away from it as I’d hoped to.
I believe the framers of our country and government were most interested in Locke’s second treatise, which dealt with government. They were opposed to monarchy, so could probably not have cared less about Locke’s defense of King William in the first treatise.
I have this as an e-book, in my Google Books account, so I’ll keep it. I’ll read it at least one more time. Except, I feel that I ought to read Filmer before re-reading Locke. And, possibly, I’ll have to read Hobbes before I read Filmer. And, I imagine when I read Hobbes I’ll find he relied on someone else and I’ll have to read that.
And, perhaps, a fourth to this one? Yes: Making The Constitution Edition, hopefully in 2019.
As I continue my research for the next volume in my Documenting America series, tentatively titled Making The Constitution Edition, I’m finding tons of material, much more than I will ever be able to read, let alone use. I found one such piece this week, from the 1788 pen of Oliver Ellsworth
Those who wish to enjoy the blessings of society must be willing to suffer some restraint on personal liberty, and devote some part of their property to the public that the remainder may be secured and protected. The cheapest form of government is not always best, for parsimony, though it spends little, generally gains nothing. Neither is that the best government which imposes the least restraint on its subjects; for the benefit of having others restrained may be greater than the disadvantage of being restrained ourselves. That is the best form of government which returns the greatest number of advantages in proportion to the disadvantages with which it is attended.
Constitutional convention delegate, US senator, chief justice of the Supreme Court
I must confess to knowing next to nothing about Oliver Ellsworth, except that which I can glean from reading this piece and a brief introductory paragraph in the book I’m reading from. He was from Connecticut, and said to be a constant champion of the Constitution then being debated in the thirteen states. After reading this piece, I assure you I’ll do some study on him.
In March 1788, six states had ratified the Constitution; others were debating. Nine states were needed for it to become the new government of the land. New Hampshire was one of the states still debating, Ellsworth wrote an open letter to the citizens of NH, using an economic argument in favor of the Constitution: it would be advantageous economically for New Hampshire.
Laying that argument aside, I find his opening paragraph (quoted above) to be inspiring, and dead on, though something I don’t know that I’ve thought of. To have a government that protects your rights and property, you have to give up some of your rights and property that the remainder of each would be defended. I’ve found the same argument in John Locke’s Treatise On Government, which I’m also reading as background understanding of the pre-constitutional era. Man in a state of nature is freer than man in society.
And, perhaps, a fourth to this one? Yes: Making The Constitution Edition, hopefully in 2019.Locke I find difficult to understand. Ellsworth makes sense. Give up some rights enjoy the blessings of society. Devote some of your property to this endeavor. Thank you, Mr. Ellsworth, for saying this clearly. Clearly, you are no Libertarian.
But he goes on. For the government to do this, it needs that money (i.e. some of your property/income/wealth) to function. You can do this on the cheap or on the extravagant. Don’t do it on the cheap, he says. Cheap expenditures gain little. So cheap government will result in little benefit. As I say, makes sense.
What do we do today with Ellsworth’s words? The national debate rages on how much government we should have, how much individual liberty we should cede, and what this should cost us. Republicans lean one way, Democrats another. Both seem at times to be caricatures of their general position. Republicans will have us believe you restrict excessive benefits by reducing the money you collect. Less money results in less spending results in less benefits.
Democrats go the other way, believing more and more restrictions on individual liberty are needed to provide benefits. The restrictions are most often in the form of collecting more revenue (i.e. taxes).
Except neither party wants to collect enough taxes to pay for the benefits, so each keeps borrowing, passing the bill for today’s benefits on to their children and grandchildren.
I think Ellsworth would say to them Enough! You Republicans, stop being so parsimonious that you squeak. You Democrats, stop being so profligate that you steal. Everybody sit down, take a good hard look at each and every government program/benefit. Decide if it’s really needed. If so, how much money is needed to pay for it? Where will you get that money without resorting to stealing it from your grandchildren?
Then do that to the next and the next. At some point you find you can’t fund everything the U.S. government is now doing without taking so much money that it results in stealing someone’s property. At that point, go back and start cutting things until you come to a point of balance.
Kind of what a typical family does at the grocery store. You pick up the premium bacon, realize you can’t buy it and milk, so put it back and take the store brand, or maybe even do without bacon this week.
I think we have a lot to learn from Oliver Ellsworth. Once I get this book put to bed, I’ll do a lot more study of him. Meanwhile, maybe this post will convince a few people (i.e. politicians) to be more fiscally responsible.
Well, you would think that, after almost a week of retirement (five days, actually, today being the beginning of the sixth), I would have accomplished much on writing. You would be wrong.
I actually started the year spending more time on genealogy and stock trading than anything else. Stock trading because it’s a new year, I needed new spreadsheets, and I needed to be active in it and try to make some money. Genealogy because I love to do it so much, and I had some new leads—or rather a little bit older leads I’d been holding off on until retirement. Following those leads now.
I’ve been holding off on writing also because I had much to do in life, and I knew retirement was coming. But retirement came, and I felt that I needed to get a few other things done first. Lynda is ill, with the flue, and it doesn’t seem to be going away quickly. Perhaps she had bronchitis as well. So I’m having to do some things for her. It’s not a burden, however. I’m glad the family sickness passed me by and I’m able to pick up the load.
I haven’t been totally absent on writing, however. A few days ago I saw a notice in a Bella Vista Facebook page about a new writing critique group someone want to form. I contacted her, and it looks as if it will happen, a once-a-month group at her house. I’m looking forward to that.
Last night I pulled out the manuscript of Adam Of Jerusalem, and began going through it looking for places where I’d marked I needed to add Adam’s backstory. Found them, and began to work on that backstory. I have the notebook next to me, in The Dungeon, and will work on it today.
These are somewhat feeble efforts, however. I wanted to get some other things done first. I felt that writing time would come shortly, and I needed to get my family budget up to date first, then file receipts, then clean up certain clutter stacks, then start a jigsaw puzzle (yes, did that yesterday). Saturday I made wonderful progress on all of these, which gave me freedom of mind to do a little on writing yesterday. Oh, yes, somewhere along the way I knew I needed to start doing some more healthy things. I’ve been doing that, though I need to ramp it up some still. Over time, over time.
Another thing I did was work some (on Saturday, I think it was), on the outline/programming of a Life Group lesson series my co-teacher and I had discussed. I like the way it’s coming together. It concerns Jesus’ activities during Holy Week. Three of the planned lessons might be a little thin on teachable/discussable material, so I’m doing a little more research on them. I should finish that today.
The last thing I’ve done is try to plan out what exactly I’m going to write in 2019. I have a list of things. I don’t know if it’s complete yet, and it’s certainly not prioritized. It reflects my Genre Focus Disorder; it reflect the fact that I have much I want to write; it also reflects that I now see myself with more time to write than I ever had before. I intend to work on that list this week, and maybe have it in shape to report it on my Friday blog.
Planning is fine, but doing is better. Time to leave this and post it, and get to my other work. See you all on Friday.
