The relevance of intent

Intent is an important - essential - ingredient in determining, for example, the nature of a crime that has been committed. Unless there was a  intent to kill we call it manslaughter or negligent homicide.  We save the word murder for those cases in which the death was the objective.  Even in chess contests intent must be present to enforce the requirement for moving a "touched piece".  Players, who wants to simply adjust a piece on a square, have long used the French expression J'adoube (I adjust) before doing so in order to make it clear that moving not their intention. In this context  "touch" a piece  has been clarified to mean "touch with the intent to move ".  

One can overdo the importance and role of intent.  If you listen to the debate over the Obamacare act you will hear, hidden between the adulatory adjectives, the supreme confidence that the left holds in intent.  The aim is to give every American healthcare. Therefore the outcome must be good.

After hearing Bill Maher explaining to his audience the unmitigated horror that religion has always delivered for our species, I mentioned to a friend who more or less shares that opinion, that I disagreed.  I believe that the conflict between church and state was a major contributor to the development of modern humanism and human rights in the lands that had been Christendom.  The Muslims on the other hand combined church and state into a theocracy which shined for awhile and then sank into such a sorry state that theological leaders who have no base of secular power can order the death of anyone who is, in their mind, in conflict with Islam. My friend thought that the argument had no validity because the leaders, both secular and spiritual, were pursuing their own interest and did not have as their objective the improvement of the lot of the average person.  This is the flip side.  If the intent is not good then the result cannot be good either.  I think this helps turn liberals away from capitalism.  I heard William Ayers respond to the argument that American Capitalism was the greatest wealth building machine that had ever been created.  He dismissed the argument as irrelevant because we stole the land from the Amerindians.  The intent of the capitalist is to get rich.  Therefore he cannot get credit for even “incidental” accomplishments of his system. 

One of my two central beliefs on this is that the Church prevented the European Kings from gaining absolute power.  Because of that the people could benefit from their conflict with each other and internally.  For example, out of the 14^th century peasant’s revolt came the following ditty:(gentleman = nobleman)

When Adam delved,

And Eve spann.

Who was then,

The gentleman.

Another example of how intent does not necessarily determine the primary result.

In 12th century England Henry II (whose "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" led to the "Murder in the Cathedral" of St. Thomas Becket) was a very strong king.

The nobility ran the courts of the land and collected the fines that came from them. Henry thought that the King's courts should determine what was justice in England.  The Baronial courts used various means to determine guilt:  trial by fire, by water or sometimes even trial by combat.  Not the kind of courtroom you'd like to go into.  

Henry offered a different kind of justice.  His version had one of his agents call on all of the people who knew anything about the case to come and tell what they knew.  His courts then acted on that evidence.  People got to choose which court to use.  Thus was born the grand jury in particular and the jury in general - that renowned bulwark of English-American freedom.

Now perhaps Henry had a deep appreciation of modern ideas of justice and knew what the outcome would be.  But my bet is that he wanted the money and power.

.Historical - Lincoln's Second Inaugural Addres

Some things are worth repeating and this is one of them.
It is also a useful reference for anyone who wants to do one of the following:
a) Refute the claim that the civil war was not about slavery.
b) Refute the claim that the American government has never had a place for religion in it.
c) Read good literature and/or history.

Lincoln'sSecond Inaugural Address

enslaved persons

A few years ago I took a trip around the US and went to several historical sites in the east.  I noticed that in many (I think all) of these locations the word “slave” was not used.  In its place was the expression “enslaved person”. 

My initial reaction was, “Well there is another example of politically correct nonsense.”

But the expression hung around in the back of my mind and finally I felt the need to analyze it.  What do the two terms say about the individuals who wear them?  How is the word whose root word is slave, used?  In the first case “slave” was a noun.  The individual was a s-l-a-v-e.  In the second case “enslaved” was an adjective.  It described the individual’s condition, not his essence.  The individual was a p-e-r-s-o-n (who had been enslaved).

Now, I know what you’re thinkin’.  To the slave it is a distinction without a difference.  Maybe. But even in the hardest of times perhaps the most important thing of all is how you think of yourself.  Frederick Douglass may not have made the verbal distinction, but I believe that he did make the psychological one.

Be that as it may, a modern American who wants to understand his country and how the reality of its history correlates with the exceptionalism of its vision ought to consider the distinction above to be about a very significant difference. 

PS  The term enslaved person also implies the existence of an enslaver.

English as the official language?

In 1787 the Constitutional Convention conceived of the United States of America. There was, however,  much work to be done to bring about a successful birth. Ben Franklin and the Pennsylvanians wanted their state to be the first to ratify the document.  To that end they published 3,000 copies of the document and distributed them throughout the state.  Two thousand of them were in English and one thousand were in German.

Apparently, even in the womb, the nation avoided paralytic monolingualism..

Athenian Decline

(from the) KEYNOTE ADDRESS OF DR. CONSTANTINE W. CURRIS 

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

to the 

Benchmark 3 Conference on Nonprofit and Philanthropic Studies 

Arizona State University 

March 17, 2006

[In connection with the Universities obligation to teach social responsibility.]
...
I recall the great historian Edward Gibbon’s observations on the demise of Athenian Democracy:   

“In the end,” Gibbon wrote, “the Athenians more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, freedom.”

“When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility – then Athens ceased to be free.”

...

Purpose for the 2nd Amendment

I was fascinated by this article regarding the reason we had to have the 2nd amendment.  I do not know if it is accurate.  Any comments by the YA community would be welcome.   I know there are some that are more historically astute than I..in fact it would not be out of the question to assume that all members of the community are more historically astute than I.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Jefferson and Lincoln and King

.
Some see in Thomas Jefferson only a hypocrite who owned slaves.

I see Jefferson as a man, admittedly flawed, who lived in a world not of his making which he could not change.

But I will also say that he did not simply "accept that which I cannot change" as in the cleric's serenity prayer. He contributed to the eventual solution in the only place where it could happen: the future. He placed in the hands of, then unknown, leaders a powerful weapon that could be wielded when the time came that it was possible to "change the things they could".

Lincoln: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
Gettysburg, November 1863

King: “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’”
Washington, August 28, 1968
.

The filibuster in winter?

.
It wasn't mock shock in the Senate last week. It was real.

It wasn't really dumping the filibuster itself, but it was a serious step in that direction.

They have a rule in the Senate (the filibuster) which makes it necessary to have 60 votes to do anything. To change a rule in the Senate requires a two thirds vote (at least it does if you are in the middle of a session).

But there is another way to change the rules or at least suspend them. It goes like this. In a certain situation the rules allow the minority to propose amendments from the floor. The Senate majority leader simply asserts that the rule does not apply. Someone appeals for a ruling from the chair. The chair rules that the leader is wrong, thus upholding the rule. So who has the final say? The whole body - the Senate. (It would be hard to argue against the right of any such body to decide the meaning of its own rules. In this case we also have Article I section 6 of the Constitution: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings") The leader then appeals the decision of the chair to the whole body. The body then decides whether to uphold the chair (maintain the rule ) or support the leader (overturn the rule ). And THAT decision is by majority vote. When the Senate voted by 51-48 to uphold Leader Reid's "interpretation" of the rules they changed that rule by a simple majority.

But it did more than that. This kind of thing has been proposed as a method of shutting down a actual filibuster by a simple majority vote. It has been called the "Nuclear Option" because it is such a big change in the way the Senate operates and people have shied away from it before. The Republicans are outraged and if, as many expect, they have the majority in 2013 then they will presumably resort to this method with much less hesitation than has been exhibited before.

So maybe the filibuster is on its way out. I hope so.
.

Seneca: "Piso's justice"

.
In De Ira (On Anger), Book I, Chapter XVIII, Seneca tells of Gnaeus Piso, a Roman governor and lawmaker, when he was angry, ordering the execution of a soldier who had returned from a leave of absence without his comrade, on the ground that if the man did not produce his companion, he had presumably killed the latter. As the condemned man was presenting his neck to the executioner's sword, there suddenly appeared the very comrade who was supposedly murdered. The centurion overseeing the execution halted the proceedings and led the condemned man back to Piso, expecting a reprieve.
But Piso mounted the tribunal in a rage, and ordered the three soldiers to be executed. He ordered the death of the man who was to have been executed, because the sentence had already been passed; he also ordered the death of the centurion who was in charge of the original execution, for failing to perform his duty; and finally, he ordered the death of the man who had been supposed to have been murdered, because he had been the cause of death of two innocent men.
.

Winston Churchill in '42

.
Everyone knows how the French defense (based of the foolish Maginot Line) collapsed so quickly in 1940 and it is now the stuff of legend how the English valiantly fought on alone for over a year against Hitler’s Nazis before help came from America and the Soviet Union. In 1942 Winston Churchill made a speech to the Canadian Parliament about the war.

He talked about the Fall of France and how, in response to his prediction that England would fight on, the French generals told their leaders that,

“In three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken.”

There was a pause and then he said: “Some chicken.”

After wild applause and another pause he continued: “Some neck.”
.

Napoleon’s March

.
In the early seventies, my work on a PhD required that I demonstrate a reading knowledge of two foreign languages. The University of North Texas provided a course that was specifically designed to prepare the student to pass a test to demonstrate that knowledge.
The course was taught by a exquisitely well-dressed middle-aged man named Dr. Richard(?) Crowder. He was an outstanding teacher who treated our lack of interest in French as perfectly normal and made the course interesting for us and (presumably) bearable for him. He discussed concepts and French verbs in delightful terms. The subjunctive meant “might could”. “Sauter” meant “to jump” and therefore when the cook sautéed mushrooms he “jumped them in the skillet”.

The thing that I remember most was his telling us of Former French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte’s escape from Elba (a small island off the western coast of Italy) to which he had been banished by the victorious English and their allies. It was believed that the restored monarchy would crush Napoleon’s little revolt, because he had only a few dozen supporters when he started.

The Paris newspaper Moniteur covered the story in 1815. Excerpts from their headlines include:

March 9 The Monster has escaped from his place of banishment.

March 10 The Corsican Ogre has landed at Cape Juan

March 11 … Troops are advancing on all sides to arrest his progress.

March 12 The Monster has advanced as far as Grenoble

March 13 The Tyrant is now at Lyon.

March 18 The Usurper [is] within 60 hours' march of the capital.

March 19 Bonaparte is advancing by forced marches, ….

March 20 Napoleon will arrive … .

March 21 The Emperor Napoleon is at Fountainebleu.

March 22 Yesterday evening His Majesty the Emperor made his public entry [into Paris]. Nothing can exceed the universal joy.

The story is that when Napoleon met the National Army he told his little band to wait and he went on alone, saying that if even one of his former soldiers was willing to shoot him then that was the way it should end. Instead, they fell upon him and wept for joy at his return.

The result of his little revolt was that he ruled France a few more months and caused the slaughter of many thousands in one more battle - Waterloo. For his second exile the British changed his status to closely watched prisoner on the remote island of St. Helena where he died in 1821.
.

Juneteenth

.
June 19 was the day that it was officially announced in Texas that the slaves were freed.

The state of Texas is widely considered the first U.S. state to begin Juneteenth celebrations with informal observances taking place for over a century; it has been an official state holiday since 1980. As of June 2011, 39 states and the District of Columbia have recognized Juneteenth as either a state holiday or state holiday observance.

Though Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, with an effective date of January 1, 1863, it had minimal immediate effect on most slaves’ day-to-day lives.

Juneteenth commemorates June 18 and 19, 1865. June 18 is the day Union General Gordon Granger and 2,000 federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, to take possession of the state and enforce the emancipation of its slaves. On June 19, 1865, legend has it, Granger publicly read the contents of “General Order No. 3”, which announced that the slaves were free.
.

On Jefferson's birthday

.
Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the only president who did not consider his presidency one of his major achievements.

His epitaph, written by him, reads:

"HERE WAS BURIED THOMAS JEFFERSON
AUTHOR OF THE DECLARATION OF AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE
OF THE STATUTE OF VIRGINIA FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
AND FATHER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA." And below it:
BORN APRIL 2. 1743. O.S.
DIED JULY 4. 1826.

Historical: Washington at Newburgh

By William Calhoun

The inside cover of the U.S. Army's Field Manual-1 addresses the role of the military in a democracy by recalling the story of George Washington's speech at Newburgh, New York. After its victory at Yorktown in 1781, the Continental Army moved into quarters near Newburgh to await a final peace settlement. With no war to unify them, the states had begun defaulting on their commitments of support to the weak national government while corrupt war suppliers drained the treasury. The Continental Congress could not raise the funds to provide pay or pensions to the soldiers who had fought the war, some of whom had not been paid in several years. Many officers feared that Congress would simply disband the army and default on its promises. As the FM-1 notes, "by the winter of 1782-83, tension within the Army's formations had reached a dangerous level. The future of the republic was in doubt."

Unsigned papers began circulating throughout the army's restless camp. One paper ignored General Washington's authority by calling a mass meeting of officers. Another fiery appeal stated that the author had lost faith "in the justice of his country." A group of officers sought to compel Congress to settle its debts through veiled threats of armed action. They attempted to enlist their victorious commander-in-chief to support their plot, but he refused every appeal, and the mutinous officers began to make signs of taking action without him. On March 15, 1783, Washington entered the officers' assembly and warned them of the momentous danger inherent in their plot. He seemed to be having little effect until he retrieved a pair of spectacles from his pocket to read a letter from Virginia congressman Joseph Jones. Jones had recently written to Washington of the huge fiscal problems Congress had to solve before they could justly discharge the claims of the army.

The officers were surprised to see Washington momentarily fumble with spectacles he had received only the month before. None of them had seen their general and hero in his eyeglasses, and he seemed to age before them. But his off-hand comment, made to put them at ease, confirmed again the personal character that had sustained the Revolution. "Gentlemen, you must pardon me, I have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind." The assembled officers were caught off guard emotionally. As Richard Kohn wrote in his book on the creation of the American military establishment, Eagle and Sword, years of frustration, recent rumor and conspiracy, and "then the unbearable strain of confronting their beloved commander seemed to hang suspended in that one moment." In his remarks, Washington had "stood them at the abyss, forced them to face the implications of rash action—civil war, treason, and the undoing of eight years' effort." Kohn concludes that "the contrast with this simple gesture, an act that blended Washington's charismatic influence with the deepest symbolic patriotism, was overpowering." The stress, the majestic bearing of the commander-in-chief, his appeal to duty, and then the very human act of their 51-year-old leader now worn by years of war destroyed the cabal and quelled the incipient rebellion. Some officers openly wept.

Washington biographer James Thomas Flexner has dramatically referred to this meeting at Newburgh as "probably the single most important gathering ever held in the United States." Kohn has noted that the Newburgh conspiracy was the closest an American army has ever come to revolt or coup d'etat, and it exposed the fragility of civil-military relations at the beginning of the republic. Had the army cast off civilian control at the critical moment of the nation's birth, a national military establishment as we know it today might have been impossible for generations afterward.

The army's Field Manual-1 further observes that Washington's willing subordination, of himself and the army he commanded, to civilian authority established the essential tenet of that service's professional ethos. His extraordinary understanding of the fundamental importance of civil preeminence allowed a professional military force to begin to flourish in a democratic society. All of our military services are heir to that legacy.
For more see additional details.

Washington's Newburgh Address
March 15, 1783
Gentlemen,
By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together. How inconsistent with the rules of propriety, how unmilitary and how subversive of all order and discipline, let the good sense of the army decide.

In the moment of this summons, another anonymous production was sent into circulation, addressed more to the feelings and passions than to the reason and judgment of the army. The author of the piece is entitled to much credit for, the goodness of his pen; and I could wish he had as much credit for the rectitude of his heart; for, as men see through different optics, and are induced by the reflecting faculties of the mind, to use different means to attain the same end, the author of the address should have had more charity than to mark for suspicion the man who should recommend moderation and longer forbearance, or, in other words, who should not think as he thinks, and act as he advises. But he had another plan in view, in which candor and liberality of sentiment, regard to justice and love of country, have no part; and he was right to insinuate the darkest suspicion to effect the blackest design. That the address is drawn with great art, and is designed to answer the most insidious purposes; that it is calculated to impress the mind with an idea of premeditated injustice in the sovereign power of the United States, and rouse all those resentments which must unavoidably flow from such a belief; that the secret mover of this scheme, whoever he may be, intended to take advantage of the passions, while they were warmed by the recollection of past distresses, without giving time for cool deliberative thinking, and that composure of mind which is so necessary to give dignity and stability to measures, is rendered too obvious, by the mode of conducting the business, to need other proof than a reference to the proceeding.

Thus much, gentlemen, I have thought it incumbent on me to observe to you... upon what principles I opposed the irregular and hasty meeting which was proposed to have been held on Tuesday last, and not because I wanted a disposition to give you every opportunity, consistent with your own honor, and the dignity of the army, to make known your grievances. If my conduct heretofore has not evinced to you that I have been a faithful friend to the army, my declaration of it at this time would be equally unavailing and improper. But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common country; as I have never left your side one moment, but when called from you on public duty; as I have been the constant companion and witness of your distresses, and not among the last to feel and acknowledge your merits; as I have ever considered my own military reputation as inseparably connected with that of the army; as my heart has ever expanded with joy, when I have heard its praises, and my indignation has arisen when the mouth of detraction has been opened against it, it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the war, that I am indifferent to its interests. But how are they to be promoted? The way is plain, says the anonymous addresser. "If war continues, remove into the unsettled country; there establish yourselves and leave an ungrateful country to defend itself."--But who are they to defend? Our wives, our children, our farms and other property which we leave behind us? or, in this state of hostile separation, are we to take the two first (the latter cannot be removed) to perish in a wilderness with hunger, cold and nakedness? "If peace takes place, never sheath your swords," says he "until you have obtained full and ample justice." This dreadful alternative of either deserting our country in the most extreme hour of her distress, or turning our arms against it, which is the apparent object, unless Congress can be compelled into instant compliance, has something so shocking in it, that humanity revolts at the idea. My God! what can this writer have in view, by recommending such measures?. Can he be a friend to the army? Can he be a friend to this country? Rather is he not an insidious foe? Some designing emissary, perhaps, from New York, plotting the ruin of both, by sowing the seeds of discord and separation between the civil and military powers of the continent? and what a compliment does he pay to our understandings, when he recommends measures, in either alternative impracticable in their nature? But, here, gentlemen, I will drop the curtain, because it would be as imprudent in me to assign my reasons for this opinion, as it would be insulting to your conception to suppose you stood in need of them. A moment's reflection will convince every dispassionate mind of the physical impossibility of carrying either proposal into execution. There might, gentlemen, be an impropriety in my taking notice, in this address to you, of an anonymous production; but the manner in which that performance has been introduced to the army, the effect it was intended to have, together with some other circumstances, will amply justify my observations on the tendency of that writing.

With respect to the advice given by the author, to suspect the man who shall recommend moderate measures and longer forbearance, I spurn it, as every man who regards that liberty and reveres that justice for which we contend, undoubtedly must; for, if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us. The freedom of speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent, we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter. I cannot, in justice to my own belief, and what I have great reason to conceive is the intention of Congress, conclude this address, without giving it as my decided opinion, that that honorable body entertain exalted sentiments of the services of the army, and from a full conviction of its merits and sufferings, will do it compleat justice: that their endeavours to discover and establish funds for this purpose have been unwearied, and will not cease till they have succeeded, I have not a doubt.

But, like all other large bodies, where there is a variety of different interests to reconcile, their determinations are slow. Why then should we distrust them, and, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures which may cast a shade over that glory which has been so justly acquired, and tarnish the reputation of an army which is celebrated through all Europe for its fortitude and patriotism? And for what is this done? To bring the object we seek nearer? No, most certainly, in my opinion it will cast it at a greater distance. For myself, and I take no merit in giving the assurance, being induced to it from principles of gratitude, veracity and justice, a grateful sense of the confidence you have ever placed in me, a recollection of the cheerful assistance and prompt obedience I have experienced from you, under every vicissitude of fortune, and the sincere affection I feel for an army I have so long had the honor to command, will oblige me to declare, in this public and solemn manner, that in the attainment of complete justice for all your toils and dangers, and in the gratification of every wish, so far as may be done consistently with the great duty I owe my country, and those powers we are bound to respect, you may freely command my services to the utmost extent of my abilities.

While I give you these assurances, and pledge myself in the most unequivocal manner, to exert whatever ability I am possessed of in your favor, let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained. Let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress; that, previous to your dissolution as an army, they will cause all your accounts to be fairly liquidated, as directed in their resolutions which were published to you two days ago; and that they will adopt the most effectual measures in their power to render ample justice to you for your faithful and meritorious services. And let me conjure you, in the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man, who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our country; and who wickedly attempts to open the flood-gates of civil discord, and deluge our rising empire in blood.

By thus determining, and thus acting, you will pursue the plain and direct road to the attainment of your wishes; you will defeat the insidious designs of our enemies, who are compelled to resort from open force to secret artifice. You will give one more distinguished proof of unexampled patriotism and patient virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings: and you will, by the dignity of your conduct, afford occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind--"had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining."
.

Human love of freedom

President Bush said (January 18, 2005(corrected 11:30 AM))
'The Desire for Freedom Is Written In Every Human Heart'
He was ridiculed by the left for this.

President Obama said (Feb. 11, 2011)
As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana, while trying to perfect his own “There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom.”
I wonder if the left will ridicule Obama for that.

I believe that there is a broad inclination by our species toward freedom.

But I believe that the love of freedom is most emphatically not universal. I will begin with those in European history who burned people at the stake for not seeing God in the right way and move forward. You can start with Osama bin Laden and work backwards. We will meet somewhere between the early Americans who fought a civil war over whether they could own their own workforce and the 20th century communists who murdered their own people by the tens of millions.

There have been a lot of folks who were not yearning for freedom.

PS In the interviews that I saw on TV with the Egyptians who had rid themselves of Mubarak, the word that was used most frequently was "dignity" not "freedom".
.

History Note - time to calculate the value of the union

This is the appropriate date for the previous post of 10-14-2010.
Once upon a time there were those in the land who doubted the worth of the American Union. They were displeased with some acts of Congress and were proposing that perhaps it was time to "calculate the value of the union."

What follows is part of Daniel Webster's response on January 27, 1830, which is considered by many to be the best speech ever made in Congress.

I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single Star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart,--

Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!
.
click here for more

The I Have a Dream Speech

See and hear the I Have a Dream Speech - Martin Luther King - August 28, 1963

Read the I Have a Dream Speech


My favorite line: I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

Historical note: Lend Lease Act,

.
The bill was initiated in the House of Representatives on January 10, 1941. America was not yet in the war but Roosevelt knew it was coming.
The act prompted the following remark from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill:

Then came the majestic policy of the President and Congress of the United States in passing the Lease-Lend Bill, under which, in two successive enactments, about £3,000,000,000 was dedicated to the cause of world freedom, without -- mark this, because it is unique -- without the setting up of any account in money. Never again let us hear the taunt that money is the ruling power in the hearts and thoughts of the American democracy. The Lease-Lend Bill must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history.

notes: The exchange rate was 1£ = 4$ which meant that the amount was $12 billion. The total GDP (GNP in those days) for the US was about $100 billion per year. That is we gave them 12% of our yearly income. A corresponding amount today would be about $1,800 billion or $1.8 trillion.
I am sure that those who ridicule the notion of American Exceptionalism will supply us a few comparable acts by other nations.
.

secession!

Today, December 20th, is the 150th anniversary of the first secession of a state from the Union. Which state? Why South Carolina of course. Prompting one of their politicians, James Petigru to say:

"Poor South Carolina, too small to be a republic, too large to be an insane asylum."

.

The Northwest Ordinance

The Northwest Ordinance is a serious contender for being one our founding documents. Its purpose was to determine how the country northwest of the Ohio river (roughly the modern states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin) would be administered, developed and brought into the union.

It was adopted by the Confederation Congress on July 13, 1787. With minor modifications it was adopted again in the first congress under the new Constitution and signed by G. Washington on August 7, 1789. Why should anybody care? Well below is a list of some of the things that it did either through the force of law or the power of precedent.
1. It established the principle that new states would be admitted into the union on a completely equal basis with the original states! That is, the new American nation would not treat acquired lands as colonies (as the Europeans did), provinces (Rome), or soviet republics (Russia). Shortly thereafter the Constitutional Convention wrote this principle into the fundamental law. (See the next installment of American exceptionalism.)
2. It provided for an orderly transition from territorial status to statehood through a process which followed the nation across the continent in the next century.
3. It specified certain rights of habeas corpus, freedom of religion, and due process (before the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

But the most important thing is that it prohibited slavery in those territories!

When the civil war came these 5 states had a population that was approximately the same as the white population of all 11 of the seceding southern states.

That is why July 13, 1787 was the day that the South lost the war.

Well, enough about these little games about when the South lost the war.

Tomorrow we will go to something much more profound about this event.

.