Author Topic: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers:  (Read 822740 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Noonan on Jefferson and Adams
« Reply #1750 on: July 05, 2021, 06:07:23 AM »
How Two Great Friends Overcame Politics
Adams and Jefferson met in 1775 and came apart in 1789. A forgotten man brought them together.

By Peggy Noonan
July 1, 2021 6:32 pm ET

America is a sharply divided place. The conservative world is divided, marked by the continued estrangement of old friends. There is the divide over Donald Trump, and the connected division between those open to conspiracism and those not. There are divides between those quietly fighting over policies that will determine the Republican Party’s future meaning and purpose, its reason for being, and between those who differ—polite word!—on the right moral attitude, after 1/6, toward the former president.

So let’s take a look at the historian Gordon Wood’s superb “Friends Divided: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ” (2017), the story of two great men whose deep friendship was sundered over politics and later repaired.


They met in Philadelphia in the Continental Congress in 1775 and invented a nation together in 1776. What allies they were, how brilliantly they worked, in spite of differences in temperament, personality, cast of mind and background. Adams of Massachusetts was hearty, frank, abrupt. He was ardent, a brilliant, highly educated man who found it difficult to conceal his true thoughts. His background was plain New England. He made his own way in the world.

Jefferson of course was an aristocrat, a member of Virginia’s landed gentry. He let the game come to him. Mr. Wood quotes a eulogist, who said Jefferson “kept at all times such a command over his temper that no one could discover the workings of his soul.” He was serene.


Adams tended to erupt. But once past his awkwardness and shyness he was jovial and warm. Jefferson, in Mr. Wood’s words, “used his affability to keep people at a distance.” Their mutual friend Dr. Benjamin Rush said Adams was “a stranger to dissimulation.” No one ever said that of Jefferson.

In the Continental Congress Adams found Jefferson so frank and decisive on the issue of independence “that he soon seized upon my heart.” Jefferson would tell Daniel Webster that Adams in those days was a “Colossus.” He was “not graceful, not elegant, not always fluent.” But in debate he’d come out “with a power, both of thought and of expression which moved us from our seats.”

Their friendship deepened in the late 1770s and ’80s, when both were diplomats representing the new nation in Europe. Abigail Adams captivated Jefferson; she was so intelligent, well-read and politically astute he called her “one of the most estimable characters on earth.” Abigail told Jefferson her husband had no closer friend. Jefferson was “the only person with whom my companion could associate with perfect freedom, and unreserve.” When Jefferson was made minister to France and Adams to Britain, their families parted. Jefferson wrote to say it left him “in the dumps.”

Jefferson later told James Madison that while Adams was vain, that was “all the ill” that could be said of him. He was a man of “rigorous honesty,” “profound in his views,” and “he is so amiable, that I pronounce you will love him if ever you become acquainted with him.”

What blew them apart? The French Revolution. Other things too but 1789 was at the heart of it. They disagreed on what it was (a continuation of 1776, said Jefferson; a perversion of 1776, said Adams) and what it would produce (a Continent drowning in blood, said Adams, who could see a Napoleon coming; a global flowering of the spirit of liberty, thought Jefferson, who seems to have mistaken Robespierre for Paul Revere ). When the revolution’s ferocity was revealed in the Terror, Adams threw it in Jefferson’s face: “In France anarchy had done more mischief in one night than all the despotism of their kings had ever done in 20 or 30 years.”


If it hadn’t been for the revolution, they might have gotten through the other strains in store. There were many. Adams became the second president, served one term, ran for re-election and was defeated by Vice President Jefferson in the brutal, rancorous 1800 election.

They disengaged, brooded (mostly Adams) and said bitter things in letters to others (mostly Jefferson).


What saved their friendship? Their friend Benjamin Rush, another great though insufficiently remembered founder. He and Adams had a long correspondence. In 1809, as Jefferson’s second presidential term ended, Adams teasingly asked Rush if he’d had any dreams about Jefferson. Rush had a lot of dreams and often shared them. Months later he reported he did have a dream, about “one of the most extraordinary events” of 1809, “the renewal of the friendship” of Adams and Jefferson. In the dream Adams wrote a short note congratulating Jefferson on his retirement.

“A Dream again!” Adams responded. “It may be Prophecy.”


Rush wrote to Jefferson to soften him up. You loved Adams, he said. Of all the evils of politics, none were so great “as the dissolution of friendships.”

Rush then told Adams to forget what had separated them—explanations are required of lovers, he said, “but are never so between divided friends.”

On New Year’s Day 1812, Adams sent Jefferson a friendly letter. Jefferson wrote back right away, what he later called a “rambling gossiping epistle.” And so their great dialogue recommenced.

They wrote faithfully for 14 years, 158 letters, on everything—what they were reading, who they saw, political philosophy, a thought they’d just had. At one point Adams said: “You and I ought not to die, before We have explained ourselves to each other.” They did their best. Adams would bring up the French Revolution. Jefferson would dodge and share his thoughts on the religious beliefs of the Shawnee Tribe. Adams remembered their history. “I look back with rapture to those golden days” when Virginia and Massachusetts “acted together like a band of brothers.”

They were writing for themselves but also, they knew, for history. They knew who they were.

And so it continued, a great pouring out, until the summer of 1826, the Jubilee summer when the entire country would celebrate the 50th anniversary of what had happened in Philadelphia on July 4.

Both men were near the end of their lives. Both held on for the great day. Wood reports Jefferson woke the night of the 3rd and asked if it was the 4th yet. His doctor said it soon would be. Early the next morning he woke again and called for his servants. Just after noon he died.

At the same time Adams, 500 miles to the north, lay dying. A memoir by Abigail’s nephew William Cranch, chief judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, reports that Adams awoke on the Fourth to bells ringing and cannon booming. The celebrations had begun. Asked if he knew what day it was he said yes, “It is the glorious 4th of July—God bless it—God bless you all.” According to legend, just before he died at 6 p.m., he awoke and said, “Thomas Jefferson survives.”

What drove their reconciliation? A tenderness, toward history and toward themselves. They knew what their friendship had been. They had lived through and to a significant degree driven a world-historical event, the invention of America. They had shared that moment and it had been the great moment of their lives, greater than their presidencies, greater than what followed. They had been geniuses together.

As the Fourth explodes around us we should take some inspiration from the story of an old estrangement healed. We’re all trying to repair something. May you have a Benjamin Rush.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Marc F. Denny defines the American Creed
« Reply #1754 on: August 04, 2021, 05:30:40 PM »
American Creed= Free minds, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of and freedom from religion, freedom of contract, right of self-defense (hence guns and knives, etc) property rights, privacy, all connected with responsibility for the disrespect for the rights of others.  All this from our Creator, not the State nor majority vote.

==============

BTW it appears that I have scored today a gig as Adjunct Professor teaching Constitutional Law.  The Adventure continues!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2021, 03:54:38 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Marc F. Denny defines the American Creed
« Reply #1755 on: August 04, 2021, 06:37:19 PM »

American Creed= Free minds, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, right of self-defense (hence guns and knives, etc) property rights, privacy, all connected with responsibility for the disrespect for the rights of others.  All this from our Creator, not the State nor majority vote.

==============

BTW it appears that I have scored today a gig as Adjunct Professor teaching Constitutional Law.  The Adventure continues!

Nice!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Marc F. Denny defines the American Creed
« Reply #1756 on: August 04, 2021, 08:06:10 PM »

American Creed= Free minds, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of contract, right of self-defense (hence guns and knives, etc) property rights, privacy, all connected with responsibility for the disrespect for the rights of others.  All this from our Creator, not the State nor majority vote.

==============

BTW it appears that I have scored today a gig as Adjunct Professor teaching Constitutional Law.  The Adventure continues!

This is great!  Congratulations! A ray of hope for the next generation!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: August 05, 2021, 06:47:59 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Hamilton
« Reply #1758 on: February 02, 2022, 03:51:57 AM »
Hamilton’s choices were key America’s success abroad

Advocacy on commercial economy, navy set up U.S.

By Rebecca Munson

Editor’s note: This is one in a series examining the Constitution and Federalist Papers in today’s America.

Alexander Hamilton’s relentless insistence on a set of national institutions — a commercial economy, a navy of respectable weight and a central bank — laid the foundation for modern American global hegemony. These institutions fostered the internal health of the young republic and prepared the country to engage successfully in the international arena.

Hamilton had a quick ability to recognize how these institutions would be integral to the success of the new republic. Together, they would provide the infrastructure for the United States to effectively protect itself and project power abroad.

From the beginning, Americans were torn about the level of effort they should put toward engaging abroad. Wishful thinking about avoiding what Thomas Jefferson famously dubbed “entangling alliances” was rampant during ratification debates. Many Americans believed that avoiding alliances and refusing to partake in the habitual hatred or habitual fondness toward other countries would help avoid war. These sentiments are still alive today. But not only is an isolationist stance difficult to maintain, it also was never embraced in the way many people imagine. As early as the 18th century, a precarious geopolitical environment was forcing America to consider how she would deal with foreign influence in the New World. Throughout the 19th century, the United States actively pursued both westward expansion and international commercial opportunities. Hamilton believed that both versions of expansion were good and thought — as Machiavelli had 300 years earlier — that successful republics were naturally expansionist.

The Founders assumed their principles of self-governance would spread internationally and the United States would come to dominate the New World. But none of them was seeking to build a traditional empire. Even the Monroe Doctrine was an attempt to avoid ensnarement in Old World rivalries, without capping America’s own regional influence.

During the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton was irritated with the hesitancy of other delegates to think beyond state sovereignty. The Federalist case for ratification of the Constitution hinged on convincing anti-Federalist skeptics that an agrarian economy and weak federal institutions might jeopardize liberty rather than protect it.

Hamilton’s insistence on a commercial economy and an energetic government was criticized — then as now — as antithetical to the liberty for which the colonists had just fought a bloody and successful war.

Advocates for an energetic commercialism found their voice in James Madison’s Federalist No. 10, in which commercialism is espoused as vital for preserving liberty. Madison argued that a healthy economy creates the kinds of political divisions and factions needed to ensure that no one group gains a majority voting bloc. Instead of a singular poor class and singular wealthy class, the disunity that stems from people possessing different types and degrees of property is precisely what prevents a majority from forming and using their voting power to tyrannize the few.

There was, however, a certain kind of faction Hamilton feared would be concerned by a robust American economy. That “faction” was the Europeans. To cure this, the states needed both the unity a constitution would provide and a navy to protect them and project their preferences.

Without a strong navy, Hamilton feared the fruits of America’s “unequaled spirit of enterprise,” extolled in Federalist No. 11 as “an inexhaustible mine of national wealth,” would become “prey to the wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other.” The unhappy result would be foreign powers “clipping the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness.” Yet “with wisdom” (a national defense) “this same enterprise might make admiration and envy of the world.”

Despite his belief in financial institutions, Hamilton rejected the hypothesis that financial ties have “a tendency to soften the manners of men” and produce peace. Instead, in Federalist No. 6, Hamilton asked a simple question: “Have they [great powers] in fact pursued it?” Of course not. Nations involved in commerce still warred with each other all the time.

Hamilton knew “the rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power.” In Federalist No. 11, he contended that a navy would force competitors to set a price “not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality.”

This is also why Hamilton wanted a central bank that would inoculate the new nation from any need to borrow from European powers. Financial stability went hand-in-hand with national security.

Hamilton saw an independent industrial base — one that could supply the necessities of war — as a critical source of American power. He was an unapologetic advocate for an executive endowed with enough power to make wartime decisions.

He was, finally, a gifted administrator. By the time he left the Treasury Department in 1795, most of what Hamilton called “my commercial system” had been established. Hamilton’s mark on American government and the international financial system is undeniable. It was his economic program that led to the eventual transfer of the world’s financial center from London to New York. It was his conception of a commercial economy that led to American economic supremacy and victory in two world wars.

Victory in those wars resulted in the opening needed to create a world order based on American revolutionary principles of liberty.

Hamilton’s vision of a strong economy, a strong navy and a strong government helped realize the Founders’ vision of American republicanism spread throughout the world.


• Rebecca Munson is associate professor and department chair in the Helms School of Government at Liberty University.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers:
« Reply #1760 on: July 01, 2022, 10:24:00 AM »
Little-known influences that shaped our founding

When we don’t know history, false narratives emerge

By Nicholas Giordano

Due to a failed education system that pushes ideology and indoctrination, many Americans are unaware of our rich and unique history — a history that exemplifi es why America is an exceptional nation. When we don’t know our history, false narratives begin to emerge like the 1619 Project, pedaling the lie that our founders were nothing more than rich white men from England who wanted to preserve the institution of slavery.

America’s real history begins with the Boston Massacre and the decision to craft the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration would convey our desire to be free from England and define the core American political philosophies, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Thomas Jefferson is synonymous with the Declaration. To a lesser degree, some may think of Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. Contrary to what has been taught, there are many unknown names from a diverse set of backgrounds that shaped our founding.

Unfortunately, most Americans have never heard of Filippo Mazzei who played a critical role in America’s founding. Mazzei, an Italian merchant, befriended Jefferson. In 1773, Mazzei traveled to America and quickly took up the cause of independence.

Mazzei and Jefferson would regularly discuss politics, sharing their ideas on how true liberty could go from the theoretical and instituted into practice. In 1774, Mazzei published an article in the Virginia Gazette and wrote, “Tutti gli uomini sono per natura egualmente liberi e indipendenti. Quest’ eguaglianza e neccessaria per costituire un governo libero.” Jefferson translated Mazzei’s work: “All men are by nature equally free and independent. This equality is necessary in order to create a free government.” The idea would become a central part of the American creed and illustrates Mazzei’s influence on the Declaration.

What makes this so remarkable is that Italians weren’t considered white until the turn of the 20th century, and it would take nearly 200 years for Congress to recognize Mazzei’s contribution. However, Mazzei’s contributions go beyond the Declaration, and his story is one of the many contributions that are never taught, intentionally perpetuating the false narratives of an evil and racist nation. Few could recognize the names Capt. Richard Taliaferro, Capt. Ferdinando Finizzi and Capt. Francesco Vigo, all playing integral roles throughout the American Revolution.

Hispanics also contributed to the cause of independence. For example, Gen. Bernardo Galvez’s victories on the battlefield were essential to eliminating British naval presence in the Gulf of Mexico. The contributions of other Hispanics like Gov. Luis de Unzaga and Lt. Jordi Mesquida also remain relatively unknown. Few Americans are aware that in the lead-up to America’s independence, a Black man, Crispus Attucks was the first casualty when he was shot and killed in the Boston Massacre. How many of us know that 5,000 Black American patriots took up the cause of independence against the British, particularly the integrated 1st Rhode Island Regiment, which earned a reputation for bravery and ferocity? What about other Black patriots, like James Armistead, who served as a spy and double agent, or Peter Salem, best known for killing Major John Pitcairn at the Battle of Bunker Hill, or Phillis Wheatley whose literary talent influenced George Washington and Benjamin Franklin? What about Lancaster Hill, Prince Hall and others, demanding America live up to the principles laid out in the Declaration and abolish the institution of slavery?

Reducing our founding to a bunch of old rich white men is a lie and does a disservice to the countless others that have contributed to this great nation. It’s odd that those who complain the loudest of whitewashing history are the same people who have controlled academia and curriculums for nearly a century. This Independence Day all Americans should make a commitment to reacquaint themselves with our country’s vibrant history.

Nicholas Giordano is a full-time tenured professor of political science and the host of “The P.A.S. Re-port Podcast.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers:
« Reply #1761 on: August 12, 2022, 08:55:26 AM »
On being a constitutional people

Convention’s gift that keeps on giving

By David Marion

The spirited debate provoked by the Supreme Court’s rulings in the abortion, religion, EPA and gun regulation cases has become disturbingly toxic due to a failure to understand how and why the Constitution allocates governmental power to promote the “safety and happiness” of the American people.

This summer marks the 235th anniversary of the Philadelphia convention that produced the United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton hit the proverbial nail on the head when he declared that “all mankind” would be the beneficiary if the American people established a republic that was true to the principles of the Constitution.

The decision to declare independence from Great Britain, and the reasoning behind that decision, initiated what George Washington called a “glorious cause” for the American people. At the heart of that cause was the decision to be a constitutional people, that is, the decision to constitutionalize the American way of life or the way in which Americans would govern themselves and live their lives.

The Constitution was designed to establish a specific kind of republic that would nurture a distinctive “way of life” for the American people (such as a love of liberty, a commitment to fair play and due process of law, creative ingenuity and moderating common sense, and a large dose of what Washington called “republican manners”). If things worked out as intended, then the Constitution was expected to give Americans a realistic shot at living in a decent and competent democracy.

In a republic where the people are the sovereign body, being a constitutional people requires more than a commitment to abide by the terms of the Constitution —although that is enormously important. In no other type of political community are civic education and specifically constitutional literacy so important as in a democratic republic.

Being a unique constitutional people requires general agreement about what the constitutional order (e.g., America) stands for or should stand for and what it means to be a member of that constitutional order (e.g., an American). To say that the American people in 2022 are deeply divided about such matters is an understatement, and the impact of this division on the health of the nation should be profoundly disturbing to liberals as well as conservatives.

Constitutionally literate citizens should understand the difference between deciphering Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce and the president’s commander-in-chief powers on the one hand and addressing the dayto- day challenges involved in reducing poverty, pollution, drug addiction and crime on the other.

When Americans look to appellate courts like the United States Supreme Court to make public policy, they are no longer thinking like the founders’ constitutional people. Constitutionally literate Americans should understand who decides what (how powers are allocated) and why (the reasoning or logic behind the allocation of powers). Understanding and addressing the complex causes of crime, poverty, health crises and pollution should be expected of legislative and executive officials, not judges — applying laws to specific cases should be the work of judges.

Americans expect a great deal from the government, and they are impatient when gratification is delayed. A Constitution that entrusts governing to a diverse group of legislative and executive officials is not designed for “jiffy lube” policy-making —but at its best, it will be good for deliberation, negotiation and coalition-building, and fair and sensible decision-making.

The alternative to constitutional politics is power politics or the advancement of political agendas by exercises of pure will and force. Power politics is more “sexy” and alluring than constitutional politics since it plays on the passions and promises something approximating quick gratification. A rights-oriented and commercial culture is fertile soil for power politics (give me what I want when I want it politics) that prioritizes outcomes over principled reasoning.

A failure to embrace the boundaries and necessary patience associated with constitutional politics opens the door to the machinations and divisiveness of persons of low and self-serving ambitions. For obvious reasons, the disposition to engage in constitutional politics must be carefully nurtured and protected since it is hard to cultivate and difficult to restore when lost.

The American people should be proud of what they have pulled off since the 1780s, thanks in no small part to the enduring genius of the Constitution, but worried about what the future holds. Public officials, educators and journalists, among other persons who shape public opinion, need to understand what George Washington appreciated about the fragility of constitutional politics.

If constitutional politics falls out of favor with the principal shapers of public opinion, and especially if the American people succumb to the deceptive promises of purveyors of power politics, then all bets are off when it comes to preserving competence and decency in the nation entrusted to our care by the delegates who labored to craft the Constitution in the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787.

David Marion is Elliot Professor emeri-tus of government and a faculty fellow with the Wilson Center for Leadership in the Public Interest at Hampden-Syd-ney College.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
American Creed: Founding Fathers: Ben Franklin
« Reply #1762 on: September 01, 2022, 08:45:59 AM »

"it is necessary for me to be extremely frugal for some time, till I have paid what I owe."

   - Ben Franklin at a very young age wrote a short list that he called his "Plan for Future Conduct" to be successful in life.  This was point 1.  Walter Isaacson Biography of Benjamin Franklin.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
desecration
« Reply #1763 on: September 29, 2022, 06:17:35 AM »
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/09/28/lizzo-plays-james-madisons-200-year-old-crystal-flute-on-loan-from-library-of-congress-while-twerking/

but wait he owned slaves ......

how insulting to patriots .......of all the people to be allowed the honor to play this antique instrument.......




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
The Cause and Necessity of Taking Up Arms
« Reply #1765 on: January 27, 2023, 04:45:53 AM »
From "A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms," 1775:

Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. — We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored. — Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them. — We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great-Britain, and establishing independent states. We fight not for glory or for conquest. We exhibit to mankind the remarkable spectacle of a people attacked by unprovoked enemies, without any imputation or even suspicion of offence. They boast of their privileges and civilization, and yet proffer no milder conditions than servitude or death.

==================

MARC:  I am not calling for such now, simply noting that this is at the core of the American Creed.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: The American Creed, "The American Way"
« Reply #1767 on: February 06, 2024, 11:05:36 AM »
One further point on American Creed, our children didn't grow up watching Superman but what he was fighting for was "truth, justice and the American Way".

Superman re-runs today say copyright 1957 but the expression goes all the way to the radio show in 1940.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth,_Justice,_and_the_American_Way

What was the "American Way"?  It looks very much like Crafty's definition of American Creed, and includes nothing we would today call "woke".

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers:
« Reply #1768 on: February 08, 2024, 01:37:48 PM »
Amen!


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Question on above tape
« Reply #1770 on: June 19, 2024, 12:41:32 PM »
Who is that women who Donie OSullivan is shown interviewing

She is a know it all elitist who lectures us on the situation.
I am guessing she is some anti Trump Leftist historian but her name is not shown in the clip I don't think.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
The Ten Commandments and Moses
« Reply #1772 on: June 24, 2024, 05:42:44 AM »
What’s the big deal about the Ten Commandments?

Laws of Moses do not restrict human freedom; they define, ensure and protect it

By Everett Piper

Did you know that the 11 words inscribed on the Liberty Bell, “Proclaim liberty throughout all the Land Unto all the inhabitants thereof,” were written by Moses? Did you know that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams originally proposed that the Great Seal of the United States include an image of Moses with the motto “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”?

Did you know that when the nine justices of the Supreme Court meet to deliberate the law of our land, they do so under the watchful eyes of a sculpture of Moses carved in stone on the courthouse’s east pediment?

Did you know that the House chamber in the U.S. Capitol is surrounded by 23 marble relief portraits of historical figures noted for their work in establishing the principles that underlie American law, and that 22 of these portraits surround and look to the central figure of Moses etched in stone on the chamber’s north wall?

Did you know that there’s an oil painting of Moses in the stairway of our nation’s Great Hall of the Department of Justice?

Did you know there is a statue of Moses along the balustrade in the Main Reading Room of the Library of Congress?

Did you know that anti-slavery activists, including Harriet Beecher Stowe and Sojourner Truth, cited Moses as their example in their fight for human dignity, freedom and emancipation?

Did you know that Thomas Paine, one of the most outspoken anti-religious leaders of our nation’s founding, wrote prolifically about the story of Moses as America’s inspiration in its fight against the British monarchy?

Did you know that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. hardly made a speech in his march for civil rights that didn’t refer to the story of Exodus and Moses?

Did you know that King’s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” implicitly referenced the “just laws” of Moses as the only justification for civil disobedience?

Did you know that when a comprehensive survey of American rhetoric during our founding era was done to assess what ideas most influenced the American Revolution, the person most frequently cited by American revolutionaries was not Montesquieu, Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Plutarch or Cicero, but Moses?

In his book “America’s Prophet,” Bruce Feiler argues that Moses’ influence on America is due to our Founding Fathers’ understanding of one fundamental truth: the paradox of liberty and law. The lesson that the first generation of Americans learned from Moses was quite simple: Liberty presupposes law. There is no freedom outside the self-evident fences endowed to us by our Creator. Thus, the language of our nation’s Declaration of Independence.

Despite all this, however, our country’s cultural elites have come to think that teaching the laws of Moses in our public schools is an egregious breach of the wall separating church from state. But even an elementary school understanding of American history teaches the opposite. By quoting Moses repeatedly, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, James Madison and Paine were not calling for a theocracy, but they were instead stating the obvious: Everyone — the religious and nonreligious alike — benefits from a Mosaic understanding of the laws of nature and nature’s God.

In other words, the men who wrote our Constitution and set the parameters for the liberties we now enjoy understood that the laws of Moses do not restrict human freedom but rather serve to define, ensure and protect it.

Another way to say it is that our founders knew that when any culture discards the “big laws” of Moses, it won’t get more liberty; to the contrary, it will get much less. They understood that when people refuse to live by the 10 simple laws of God, they will inevitably get reams upon reams of little laws that rush in to fill the vacuum, thousands of rules and regulations imposed by arrogant oligarchs who think they know better than we do about how we should live our lives, raise our children and spend our money, and what pronouns we should use.

So, this week, as you watch the talking heads on MSMBC and CNN lose their minds over Louisiana’s new law requiring schools to post Moses’ Ten Commandments in their classrooms, ask yourself this: What’s the big deal? Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paine and King all cited the laws of Moses as the foundation of our constitutional republic If Moses has so profoundly influenced our national character and personal freedoms that he is featured in the halls of Congress and in the statuary of the Supreme Court of the United States, then why wouldn’t we want to teach his lessons and his laws to the next generation of America’s leaders?

Everett Piper. Everett Piper (dreverettpiper.com, @dreverettpiper), a columnist for The Washington Times, is a former university president and radio host

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Official Start of America
« Reply #1773 on: June 25, 2024, 04:48:02 AM »


‘We Were Then Truly a Nation’
The official start of the United States of America.
James Freeman
June 21, 2024 5:38 pm ET




The annual Market Days street fair in Concord, N.H., on Thursday morning. PHOTO: KATHY MCCORMACK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
New Hampshire has long had the country’s most bracing state motto—“Live Free or Die.” New Hampshirites can also proudly note their state’s role in allowing all Americans to live in freedom, and for which we all might feel some gratitude. Specifically it was on this day in 1788 that the Granite State brought the U.S. Constitution to life by serving as the critical ninth state to ratify it. A year after retiring as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger wrote an article for the Associated Press in 1987 and explained:

When many people think of the creation of the Constitution, they have in mind the dramatic events at the Philadelphia Convention during the summer of 1787. But the real battle over the Constitution—and it was a very close one—was fought in the states during the ratification process.
The opposition was fired in large part by the very American impulse to seek more protection for individual liberty and more constraints on the national government. Like a number of the other states that ratified the Constitution, New Hampshire signed on, but also urged changes:

In Convention of the Delegates of the People of the State of New-Hampshire June the Twenty first 1788.

The Convention haveing Impartially discussed and fully considered the Constitution of the United States of America, reported to Congress by the Convention of Delegates from the United States of America & submitted to us by a Resolution of the General Court of said State passed the fourteenth Day of December last past and acknowledgeing with gratefull Hearts the goodness of the Supreme ruler of the Universe in affording the People of the United States in the Course of his Providence an Opportunity, deliberately & peaceably without fraud or surprize of entering into an Explicit and solemn compact with each other by assenting to & ratifying a new Constitution, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, Insure domestick Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to themselves & their Posterity-Do In the Name & behalf of the People of the State of New-Hampshire assent to & ratify the said Constitution of the United States of America. And as it is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alterations in the said Constitution would remove the fears & quiet the apprehensions of many of the good People of this State & more Effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government- The Convention do therefore recommend that the following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.-

First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States…

Good call. This and other suggestions from New Hampshire and other states would be reflected in the Bill of Rights. New Hampshire offered a number of good ideas:

…That Congress shall erect no Company of Merchants with exclusive advantages of Commerce.-…
Congress shall make no Laws touching Religion, or to infringe the rights of Conscience…

But New Hampshire had taken months to conclude its fierce debate, and ratification was only achieved by a margin of 57-47. Burger notes that the debate didn’t really end there:

Ratification by nine states was technically sufficient for the Constitution to take effect for those states. But as a practical matter, any government that did not include Virginia, the largest and most powerful of the 13 states, and New York, with New York City even then an important commercial and shipping center, would be too weak to function as a true national government.

The Virginia Ratification Convention took place in Richmond over the course of three weeks, with those great patriots, Patrick Henry and George Mason, strongly opposed to the Constitution. Their oratory was met by analytical arguments from James Madison and the rising young lawyer, John Marshall. Backing Madison and Marshall were George Washington, James Monroe, Edmund Randolph and other leading Virginians. Even with such powerful support, the final vote, taken on June 25, 1788, was 89 to ratify and 79 opposed.

The battleground then shifted to New York, where Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and Madison had published a series of newspaper editorials supporting ratification, later collected as the Federalist Papers. Despite the persuasive arguments of these men, the margin in New York was close, 30 to 27 for ratification.

Even the founder of the New York Post couldn’t persuade everybody.

Writing in the Journal in 2010, Stanford law professor Michael McConnell elaborated on the challenges of that era as he reviewed Pauline Maier’s book “Ratification”:

Even while ratifying the Constitution, at least seven of the state conventions—representing the vast majority of Americans—expressed the view that the new government had been given too much power. The conventions demanded amendments to curb the government’s potential for oppression. And the most popular of the amendments—the only one agreed on by all the states proposing the changes—limited the federal government’s broad power of taxation.
Advertisement


It should be emphasized that opposition to the new Constitution was not confined to polite discussion. Mr. McConnell added:

In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, as Ms. Maier reports, debates sometimes broke into violence. The Pennsylvania legislature gained the quorum necessary to call a ratifying convention only when a mob broke into the homes of two recalcitrant legislators and dragged them forcibly to the statehouse. When the New York convention, dominated by delegates from upstate counties, appeared adamantly opposed to ratification, metropolitan New Yorkers threatened to secede from the state, even at the risk of possible civil war. Later, Rhode Island was coerced into ratification by an act of Congress cutting off all trade. Any merchant caught trading with Rhode Islanders would face confiscation of his ship, a substantial fine and up to six months’ imprisonment.
A particularly notorious incident occurred in Albany, N.Y., on the Fourth of July, 1788. After hearing news of Virginia’s ratification, supporters of the Constitution staged a noisy celebration. Infuriated opponents counter-marched, publicly burned a copy of the Constitution, and later assaulted a group of supporters with clubs, stones and bricks. Federalists then trashed the tavern where the Anti contingent met and took several prisoners.

Despite bitter differences the first U.S. citizens managed to work together to ensure a free and prosperous society for tavern patrons and and non-patrons alike, and so can we. Burger noted the resolution of the great rancorous debate:

North Carolina, after first rejecting the Constitution in August 1788, ratified it in late 1789. In May 1790, the legislature of Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution by a vote of 34 to 32.

We were then truly a nation.
***

James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival” and also the co-author of “Borrowed Time: Two Centuries of Booms, Busts and Bailouts at Citi.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Charlie Kirk
« Reply #1775 on: August 19, 2024, 08:16:18 AM »
I would have preferred "Judeo-Christian" over "Jesus", but the fundamentals of the discussion here are deep and correct.   Lots of inconvenient truths!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6R_-AvCUsQ


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Fisher Ames 1801
« Reply #1777 on: September 11, 2024, 01:31:28 PM »


“Liberty is not to be enjoyed, indeed it cannot exist, without the habits of just subordination; it consists, not so much in removing all restraint from the orderly, as in imposing it on the violent.”

—Fisher Ames (1801)