Admin (1)

 

Washington D.C., becomes the Nationʼs Capital — (America, Vol. 1,pp. 144-146) This decision favorable to the South, agreed upon around 1790, served as the political tradeoff for congressional acceptance of Hamiltonʼs plan for retiring war debts? Jefferson and Madison were of a mind to block the Treasury secretaryʼs scheme, which funded speculators at par ($100 for a $100 bond note) and assumed state debts still outstanding.But when Hamilton proved willing to swap votes, the two Virginians fell in line and pledged their influence to persuade Southern colleagues to do likewise.

 National Bank — (America, Vol. 1, p. 147)

This feature of the national financial system was justified by its programatic architect (Hamilton) as essential to the new governmentʼs access to credit and toAmerican commercial development? Jefferson and Madison objected to its constitutionality, but it came into being nonetheless when President Washington and Congress supported it. Its constitutionality, argued Hamilton, was by virtue of the “implied powers” granted Congress in the “necessary and proper clause” (Article 1, section 8).

 Jefferson Takes His Stand — (America, Vol. 1, pp. 147-148)

The agrarian philosopherThomas Jefferson (1743–1826), in his Notes on Virginia, argued that good manners and mores, not to mention providing for oneself lifeʼs basic necessities, made urbanization and industrialization bad policy for America.

Jefferson wrote: “The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body.  It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigour.Adegeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.”

Jefferson preferred, “for the general operations of manufacture,” thatAmericaʼs “work- shops remain in Europe.”  Far better, he thought, to send our raw goods to workmen there than to bring an immigrant proletariat (industrial working class) to our shores.  We could simply import whatever mass-produced goods we needed.

 

What are we to make of, to our ears, such a strange sounding view of the world? Is it just New World chauvinism or the snobbery of frontiersmen?  Perhaps.  But it may also be that a society skewed toward massive cities and mass production and consumption will inevitably lose its way and its soul. As one French scholar put it, people are like apples.  If they live stacked one upon another, they will rot.

 

Jefferson may have perceived a slavish spirit, demoralized and helplessly dependent, in the urban masses. They simply were not fit (even if the blame lay mostly elsewhere) for the duties and privileges of republican liberty.

Download a printable copy here…

The Federalist Papers — (America, Vol.1, pp. 127-129)

This collection of essays, first appearing in newspapers in the late-1780s, was penned in support of the U.S. Constitution by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison?  While ratification debates raged, the authors offered their refutation of the Constitutionʼs opponents, theAntifederalists, whose influence was particularly potent in places like New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Over time, the collection has attained the lofty status of a classic, a stellar example of earlyAmerican political theory.

 Federalist No. 10 — (America, Vol. 1, p. 128)

Madison, in this famous Federalist essay, challenged the assumption that small agrarian societies were more suited to republicanism than large commercial ones? Madison said the smaller republics of old failed precisely because of their limited size: they didnʼt have a multitude of “factions” (special interests) jockeying for advantage and counterbalancing one anotherʼs ambitions.His conclusion, dubious in light of our history, was that big commercial societies best serve republican liberty.

 Patrick Henry — (America, Vol. 1, pp. 130-131)

This iconic Virginian (1736–1799) led the Antifederalist fight against the U.S. Constitution in his native state in 1788? He complained even of Constitutionʼs Preamble, asking “who authorised them [the conventionʼs delegates] to speak the language of, We, the People, instead of We, the States?States are the characteristics, and the soul of a confederation.  If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the states.”

 “The Sacred Fire of Liberty” — (America, Vol. 1, p. 135)

In his first inaugural (addressed to Congress on April 30, 1789, in New York City) George Washington used this phrase to identify the republican model of government? He said it seemed this model, with its many duties and privileges, had been entrusted to Americans in a grand experiment ordained by Heaven itself. Prior to his remarks, Washington had placed his hand on a Bible and recited the presidential oath, adding the words “So help me God” (and thus setting a precedent for all future inaugurations).

 Click here for a printable copy…

Noah Webster — (Adam C. Wolfe, Chroniclesmagazine, Jan. 2012)

This Connecticut lexicographer (1758–1843) tried to pioneer a national approach to learning and letters through his American Dictionary of the English Language and his American Spelling Book? The latter, also known as the “Blue-Backed Speller,” taught five generations how to read.His nationalist ambitions, however, went way beyond standardizing the way Americans read and write, aimed as they were on erasing all regional dialects and removing our landmarks in the literature and culture of Britain.

 James Monroe — (Almanac, Jan. 17)

The two presidential terms (1817–1825) of this Virginian coincided with the first period of extensive tranquility for the new United States, the so-called “Era of Good Feeling”? Highlights of this era included a treaty with Britain to disarm the Canadian border, the purchase of Florida from Spain, and the Missouri Compromise over slave and free states.  His greatest executive achievement was a foreign policy proclamation (1823) warning Europe to refrain from further conquest in the Western Hemisphere.

 Eschatology — (Peter Leithart, Deep Comedy)

This term in Christian theology, from “the last things” in Greek, implies that human history is Divine comedy, a story that ends everlastingly not only as well as but better than it began? Such a view was basically foreign to the Greco-Roman world with its pervasive degenerative and cyclical outlook (things go from good to bad to worse, over and over again).  By contrast, the Bible, says author Peter Leithart, moves from garden to garden lost to garden-city, proving that “God gives with interest.”

 Works and Days— (Peter Leithart, Deep Comedy)

This Greek epicby Hesiod (c. 800 BC) relates in classic form the pagan view of history, a degenerative myth that moves from good to bad to worse, or from glory to dust? Revisited by many ancient poets, like Romeʼs Ovid (43 BC–17AD), Hesiodʼs metallic ages (gold, silver, bronze, & iron) make room for an interlude of heroes, but generally speaking there is no hope for later times. The first things are necessarily the best things,and the fathers always outshine the sons.

 Virgil — (Peter Leithart, Deep Comedy)

This Roman poet (70–19 BC), famed author of the Aeneid, came closer than any of the pagans to a hopeful view of history, one in which a golden age of plenty reemerges from a forgotten past after long years of decline and decay? His Fourth Eclogue, manifestly messianic in tone, tells of the birth of a child through whom the world is eventually renewed. The happy ending suggested in this and other works, however, is tempered by tears and never advances in glory beyond the beginning.

For a Printable Copy, Click Here…

Among the U.S. Constitutionʼs compromises on slavery were various clauses, one requiring runaway slaves to be returned to their masters and another making Congress wait twenty years before it could abolish the African slave trade. The best known of the compromises, however, dealt with the census and representation in Congress. This fractional formula was to be used to count slaves, not because they were deemed less than human, but to hold back somewhat the political power of the Southern states?

Slavery, the Constitution, andAbe Lincoln — (America Vol.1, pp. 124-125)

Howcould an antislavery man likeAbe Lincoln (1809–1865), it is often asked, embrace the U.S. Constitutionʼs compromises on, and allowance for, slavery? To answer the query Bill Bennett cites professor Harry Jaffa, author of numerous scholarly books and an authority on Lincoln. For Jaffa, Lincoln wisely took the long view: our sixteenth president strongly favored whatever he thought was necessary or good for the Union. This included, above all, the Constitution (even with its slave compromises), the Constitutionʼs provision for a stronger central government, and that governmentʼs subsequent efforts to advance industry, commerce, and national prosperity.

Moreover, what was good for the American Union, Lincoln believed, would also be good for the slaves (at least in the long run). The reason? America uniquely embodied the great proposition (truth claim) about human equality and natural rights enshrined in the Declaration and so memorably restated by Lincoln himself in his Gettysburg Address (1863). As long as we preserved and strengthened the Union, the Illinoisan thought, there was every reason to hope for an eventual and definitive end of slavery. To lose theUnion, on the other hand, was to lose such hope.

This helps explain Lincolnʼs otherwise puzzling remark to New York Tribune editor HoraceGreeley in 1862: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.  If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

ThusLincoln, the Constitutionʼs slave compromises notwithstanding, was a Constitution-man because he was a Union-man, and a Union-man because, on his reading of it, the Union stood first and foremost for the equal rights of all.

For a Printable Copy Click Here…

James Madison — (America, Vol. 1, pp. 117-118)

This Virginian (1751–1836) helped convene the Constitutional Convention, painstakingly documented its deliberations, and zealously defended its final document? According to biographer M.E. Bradford, however, his critical role in the Convention could be seen as “comic” in the classical sense. He began well (his status as sage and lawgiver generally acknowledged) and ended well, but in between suffered the defeat of several proposals deemed likely to fail if placed before the states for ratification.

 Begin Sessions with Prayer — (America, Vol. 1, p. 119)

At a time of grave uncertainty in the Constitutional Convention (1787), Pennsylvaniaʼs Ben Franklin rose to make this spiritual recommendation (which wasnʼt followed)? Franklin (typically deist in religious matters) alluded to Jesusʼ teaching on Godʼs providence, asking rhetorically, “if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?” The elder statesman also cited the Psalms: “Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.”

 Representation in Congress — (America, Vol. 1, pp. 117-120)

The greatest contest at the Constitutional Convention (1787), according to Madison, pitted large states against small states over this issue peculiar to republics? The large statesʼ proposal (masterminded by Madison) insisted on the equality of citizens and the power of popular majorities, while the small states opted for the equality and powerof states as corporate entities.The deadlock was broken by Connecticutʼs Roger Sherman, whose compromise gave its due to the principles of both sides.

 

Checks and Balances — (America, Vol. 1, pp. 120-121)

The Constitution incorporates this principle requiring political decisions based on the cooperation of more than one branch or body of the federal government?One could cite, for example, the presidentʼs power to appoint judges with “the advice and consent of the Senate,” or his power to direct the armed forces in war subject to congressional authorization. The object in view, which hasnʼt worked well in practice, is to disperse power and prevent unconstitutional aggrandizement by any department of the U.S.

 Article VI — (America, Vol. 1, p. 121)

Of the 7 articles that make up the main body of the Constitution, this one says that, “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States?”  Historically, the provision was intended (by the Framers and the ratifying States) to prevent exclusion from federal posts on account of oneʼs Christian denominational identity. In modern times, however, it is seen more as an affirmation of everyoneʼs private rights and a denial of religionʼs relevance to politics.

Click Here for a Printer Friendly Version

In the old republic (the one bequeathed by the Founders), the states existed less to do the bidding of the Feds than to counterbalance it with policies and practices all their own.The basic idea was national unity in a few well-defined things (made explicit by the Constitution and energetically superintended by the general government), and regional diversity in many other kinds of things (attended to by the states and localities). Unity in diversity and diversity in unity.  What a novel idea the Fathers concocted!

Articles of Confederation — (America, Vol.1, p. 108)

This constitution, Americaʼs first as an independent republic, was drafted in 1777 but not formally ratified until 1781? The document enshrined “perpetual Union” as the aspiration of the Atlantic seaboard states, but its chief concern was clearly the preservation of the “sovereignty, freedom and independence” of each state in particular. Although superseded by the U.S. Constitution (1789), its spirit of regional and local patriotism colored the new arrangements and proved potent for generations. 

Weaknesses (or supposed weaknesses) of Articles — (America, Vol.1, p. 109) The most obvious weakness of the Articles of Confederation, crying out for some correction, was the inability of the general government under the document to tax the states for necessary funds. All the Confederation could do was make formal requests or demands for money or manpower. It was up to the states whether they would honor such requests and to what degree (and often they didnʼt honor them at all). 

Another weakness limited the Confederation government to one institution, the Congress. This one body then, by necessity, would have to perform all the governmental functions itself: the lawmaking (legislative), the law-enforcing or implementing (executive), and the law-interpreting in the context of settling disputes (judicial). The difficulty for Congress of fulfilling all these functions is one thing, but the danger of doing so is another.  Such a concentration of political responsibilities in one body tends toward an excess of power, not weakness. You will recall that the U.S. Constitution, which replaced the Articles, gave us a separation of powers in three branches of government for precisely this reason. In light of how most texts today view theArticles of Confederation (gave us a central government thatʼs too weak), this observation is a little ironic to say the least. 

With regard to the status of states in the Confederation Congress and how they voted, many (it seems Bill Bennett included) see weaknesses.  However, the opposite could be argued. Each state, regardless of size, got one vote in the body.  On most matters a majority was sufficient (7 of the 13 states), greater matters required 9 states to agree, and changes in the Articles themselves required unanimity. One is tempted to ask, whatʼs so bad about that?  Perhaps itʼs only a weakness, if you regard the essential equality and independent authority of the states weakness.

 Click here for a printable copy…

Jeffersonʼs proposal, in theory, took away any formal, communal affirmation of religion while establishing universal rights for all.  Henryʼs, on the other hand, acknowledged publicly the essential Christian character of Virginia and Virginians, while securing a broad plurality of rights within the sphere of that general acknowledgement.

Ultimately, the question boils down to whether religious rights, to the extent they exist, are merely an individual or private matter, or whether there is not also some legitimate public and communal dimension to them.  Is it desirable or even acceptable for a community, a social and political entity, to affirm its faith?  Or, perhaps more troubling, to deny other faiths it deems too far removed from its own?

Henryʼs bill tried to balance the public with the private, the communal with the individual aspects of things in ways suited to his time and place.  Is it necessary to point out that If your goal is both liberty and order, or ordered liberty, thatʼs a reasonable thing to do? Bennett made it sound as though the force of logic itself was clearly on Jeffersonʼs side, the side of universal private rights and public “wrongs” in religion.  Is that so?This teacher remains unpersuaded (and he trusts he hasnʼt taken leave of his reason).

Click here to view a printable copy…

We continue our study of America and the West with this first of nine consecutive weekly posts for the winter months of December, January, and February.  Our triweekly history tests are based mostly on these posts and occur after #3, #6, and #9.

Our quarterly exam (Winter 2012 History & Heritage Test) will be ready, Lord willing, at the end of February.

Text sources for the various posts (appearing in either summary or Q&A form) include George Grant & Gregory Wilburʼs ChristianAlmanac and William Bennettʼs America, Volume 1. Other sources added to the mix from time-to-time will likewise be indicated.

The teacherʼs prime object via the history & heritage blog is to engage both students and parents in our common civilizational inheritance.  Hope you enjoy, and take a little time to discuss together, the content for this and subsequent weeks.  Merry Christmas!

 The Remarkable Leadership of Teddy Roosevelt — (Almanac, Nov. 29)

Aftera crucial legislative setback, President Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) called the leaders of the Senate opposition to the White House on November 29, 1905, (early inTRʼs second term or first full term). The senators, expecting to be browbeaten or verbally abused, were pleasantly surprised when the president gently inquired as to the reasons for their opposition, and asked how he might serve them and theAmerican people better in the future.  “I learned more about leadership and greatness in that one incident,” one of the senators remarked, “than in all my previous years in politics.”

 Rooseveltunderstood that fallen men living in a fallen world are bound to fail, at least some of the time (even if they possess the strength of character and encyclopedic learning of a Teddy Roosevelt).What mattered to him was the contest, the vigorous effort, an honest admission of mistakes, and a willingness to learn from those mistakes.

 “Farbetter it is,” he colorfully observed, “to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.”

 Rosa Parks — (Almanac, Dec. 1)

Bornin 1913 in Tuskegee, Alabama, (home to the exploits of educator Booker T. Washington), this African-American lady sparked the modern civil rights movement by her behavior on a bus in Montgomery,Alabama, on December 1, 1955?  She refused to give up her seat in the front of the “colored-section” to a white passenger as requested, and suffered the indignity of arrest.In response, the local NAACPorganized a bus boycott (lasting over a year) to challenge segregation in public transportation.

 “IntolerableActs” — (America, Vol.1, p. 74)

American colonists gave this name to a series of punitive acts passed by the English Parliament in 1774 in response to SamAdamsʼ skillfully executed “Boston Tea Party”? One of the acts closed Boston harbor, while another revised the hallowed charter of Massachusetts to take away popular election of the Upper House of the legislature.  Still another extended Quebec southward to the Ohio River, bringing Catholicism, French culture, and the specter of absolute monarchy menacingly near the colonies.

 Popeʼs Day and the Father of Our Country — (America, Vol.1, p. 80)

Itwas late 1775, with Patriot forces surrounding Boston (still held by the British), when George Washington, Commander of the ContinentalArmy, put an end to Popeʼs Day festivities (a traditional New England holiday) by military camp decree.Among other things, New England soldiers were making preparations to burn the pope in effigy.

Washington clearly found the revelry distasteful (he termed it “ridiculous and childish”), and he knew it could not help Americaʼs standing with French Catholics in Canada or in France (not to mention the minority Catholic population in the colonies). Their support and assistance, Washington believed, were crucial if independence was to be achieved.

Even more importantly, Washingtonʼs military decree gave us a hint of theAmerican religious outlook as it evolved over time.  Broadly speaking, a national consensus affirmed the truth and benevolence of Christianity, but with respect for its variety of expressions in distinct denominations and churches. Full freedom of religion for all Christians and Christian institutions became the norm, coupled with a fairly broad tolerance of dissenters whose beliefs fell outside the Christian orbit.

 Saratoga — (America, Vol.1, pp. 90-91)

ThisOctober 1777 victory in upstate New York, Americaʼs biggest to date in the Revolutionary War, convinced the French to support fully theAmerican cause?ABritish and Indian force of 6,000 led by General John Burgoyne surrendered after suffering many loses at the hands of Col. Dan Morganʼs sharpshooting riflemen, including Sgt. Timothy Murphy of Pennsylvania. Earlier, Burgoyne had bet a parliamentary colleague heʼd beat theAmericans and be back in Britain by Christmas Day.

FDR Lauds Timothy Murphy — (Historian Roger McGrath in Sept. 2010 Chronicles) The state of New York, in 1929, raised a monument to the Revolutionary War victory at Saratoga on the battlefield site. The monument was dedicated to Timothy Murphy, the son of Irish immigrants who settled the Pennsylvania frontier.  New Yorkʼs governor at the time, Franklin Roosevelt, spoke these words for the occasion:

 This country has been made by Timothy Murphys, the men in the ranks. Conditions here called for the qualities of the heart and head that Tim Murphy had in abundance. Our histories should tell us more of the men in the ranks, for it was to them, more than to the generals, that we were indebted for our military victories.

 

Click Here for a printable copy…

Preparations are now in full swing for the Fall 2011 History & Heritage Test to be

unveiled to students on Friday, December 2. Till then, there are no further blog posts.

Below are a few of the items that did not make it to the previous nine fall posts:

African Methodist Episcopal Church (AMEC) — (Almanac, Nov. 8th)

This Christian denomination came into being in the early 1800s, its first bishop the

former slave Richard Allen from Delaware who cast his lot with Wesleyʼs Methodists?

The largely African-American church was a response to a persistent pattern of racial

discrimination found everywhere in America, North and South. Offenses included

instances when black children were denied baptism, and when even free blacks (never

mind slaves) had to wait to receive the Lordʼs Supper until whites were served first.

St. Patrick — (Almanac, Nov. 10)

As tradition would have it, the 5th-century British monk St. Patrick returned to Ireland as

a missionary in 432 AD, preached and baptized there in the presence of his former

captors and slave masters for over fifty years, and assisted in the Christian conversion

of over a hundred thousand souls.

Legends about him abound, of course. But as one respected Irish church historian

(William Dool Killen) observed, “There can be no reasonable doubt that Patrick

preached the gospel, that he was a most zealous and efficient evangelist, and that he is

entitled to be called the Apostle of Ireland.”

Impressive to say the least was Patrickʼs sense of his utter dependence on the triune

God for his own conversion (not to mention that of others) and for his ongoing quest for

true spirituality. He said of his first stay in Ireland as a youth in captivity, “Even when I

was staying out in the woods or on the mountain, I used to rise before dawn for prayer,

in snow and frost and rain, and I felt no ill effect and there was no slackness in me. As I

now realize, it was because the Spirit was glowing in me.”

Quebec City — (America, Vol.1, pp. 58-59)

This venerable North American city served New France as its “Rock of Gibraltar” in

the 17th and 18th-centuries (1600s & 1700s)? Its sense of secure impregnability, both

physical and spiritual, was so acute, in fact, that its cathedral was named Notre Dame

des Victoires (Our Lady of Victories). All that would change, however, in the late 1750s,

when the more aggressive strategy of English Prime Minister William Pitt the Elder

would bring the French citadel to its knees.

William Pitt the Elder — (America, Vol.1, pp. 58-61)

The maker and builder of the British Empire, this prime minister (“the Great

Commoner”) led his country to victory over France in the Seven Years War

(1756–1763)? His vigorous strategy beat back his foreign rivals on the seas, in Europe,

in India, in Africa, and of course in North America where the conflict was called the

French and Indian War. Eventually made 1st Earl of Chatham, he was especially

popular in America for opposing the imposition of fresh taxes on the colonies.

Britainʼs Stamp Tax Rationale — (America, Vol. 1, pp. 63-64)

On the surface, Britainʼs 1760s Stamp Tax rationale seems reasonable enough.

Bennett writes: “The tax was intended to raise revenue in the colonies to cover the

huge debts Britain had incurred during the French and Indian War. . . After all, the costs

of maintaining military defense and civilian administration in the colonies had jumped

[fivefold from about 1750 to 1765]. Under the Stamp Act, colonists would pay a tax on

almost anything written or printed. . .”

Undoubtedly cut and dried from the Britsʼ point of view. However, Britainʼs unbearable

burden of debt was not merely the result of increased activity in North America. It had

much to do with imperial ambition, rivalry, and war worldwide.

“A Wise and Salutary Neglect” — (America, Vol.1, p. 67)

“A wise and salutary neglect” was 18th-century parliamentarian Edmund Burkeʼs way of

describing the policies of Britain toward her Atlantic seaboard possessions from roughly

1607 to 1760. Simply put, Crown and Parliament left the colonies alone. From New

Hampshire to Georgia, the colonists developed their own representative assemblies

through which they governed themselves.

In 1760, George III takes the throne; not long afterward George Grenville would take

over the British treasury (chancellor of the exchequer) and prime ministership. From

that point on Britain, reeling from debt, would try to squeeze more money out of

America, in the process applying direct pressure on the colonies in the form of fresh

taxes and regulations by decree of Parliament across the sea.

So much for Burkeʼs “salutary neglect.” The vital law-making role of the colonial

assemblies was now in jeopardy, and with it the self-governing rights or political liberties

of colonial Englishmen. As the popular saying of the day insisted, “No taxation without

representation.”

This was the crisis of liberty which finally culminated in a unified colonial secession from

the British Empire, and a forceful assertion of the sovereign rights of thirteen “free and

independent states” (see the Declaration of Independence). What was at stake was not

so much the theoretical rights (natural or otherwise) of theoretical individuals. Rather,

the time-tested and customary rights of Englishmen to govern themselves through their

own republican institutions (assemblies and bodies that were homegrown, local,

communal, and colonial in size and scope).

Click here for a printable copy