Of Civil War and National Unity

Photo by Veronica Livesey on Unsplash

At a sesquicentennial distance the Civil War can become too easy to romanticize.  We can be tempted to envision some charm in it.  From a prolonged study of the Civil War, via many sources and a variety of formats, I find little romance in it.  The brutality and misery of that war have not been overstated.  Fortunately, there was work that was noble and heroic, such as the ending of slavery.   

A more peaceful solution, in hindsight, was available and likely, as the operation of the Constitution was steadily bringing about.  Perhaps it took a civil war challenge to that Constitution to make people recognize—the slaveholders especially—that a peaceful end to bondage would have been preferable.  Abraham Lincoln, a casualty of the war, perceived in a few words at the Gettysburg commemoration, that the Civil War was “testing whether [our] nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

To what conception and dedication did Lincoln refer?  “A new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”

It must be understood that Lincoln observed that this nation had not fully achieved those principles.  He called it “unfinished work.”  Building on how well that work had begun, Lincoln praised how far it had been “so nobly advanced.”  Our nation, conceived in liberty, embraced a dedication to which our Founders bound themselves and their posterity, to achieve the proposition that each of us was created equal.  As the price in blood and suffering mounted, he was asking whether such a dedicated nation, still in its adolescence, could continue.

Through the 21 months following Gettysburg, the price would grow higher and more horrid while the people of that day persevered and demonstrated that the nation would endure, as it has to our day.  Further headway was made to fulfill our founding principles.

Today is a time for our dedication to be tested, as such a nation will always be.  Loud, magnified voices—there were those in Lincoln’s day demanding to end the effort (he nearly lost his reelection to some who preferred a compromise with the slavocrats)—today parade the obvious that our nation has not yet achieved all of our Founders’ ideals, and so demand that we abandon those ideals.

They prescribe a return to the age old pattern whereby in exchange for our liberty the self-selected few are elevated to mold the rest, prescriptions that somehow end up profiting the new bosses.  As in the past, while dressed in varieties of costumes, the chieftains, kings, czars, fuehrers, commissars, and other ugly monsters reshape societies that eventually devolve into ruin.

Their “modern” strategy is similarly old:  divide and conquer.  Rhetorical crossbows aim darts first at the failings of the very human Founders, to whom they assign blame for anyone unhappy with himself.  Next they guide their unhappy victims against our founding ideal, “the proposition that all men are created equal.”  Their bizarre assertion is that any failure in the ideal’s complete achievement justifies its trashing, the more violently the better.  Upon the ruins of civil disorder, disunion, and violence, they would build in the name of “equity” where they have destroyed fundamental equality. 

That is the program of those positioned to claim to be more equal than others while they rake in a bigger share of the proposed “equity.”  It is all old naked ugliness when denuded of the costumes.  In time it has always failed, but not without putrid fruits of misery.

In 1863 Abraham Lincoln appealed to his hearers for increased devotion to ensure that our nation, governed of, by, and for the people, should not perish.  Succeeding generations have united to nurture the nation.  It is our task to answer the divisive calls with our dedication to advance the work so nobly begun. 

Of Slavery and the Constitution

 

Photo by Jen Theodore on Unsplash

Slavery in America was doomed under the Constitution, and the slavocrats knew it.  For more than four score years they had been fighting and steadily losing ground to preserve slavery.  When Abraham Lincoln was elected President, the slavocrats understood that things would not get better for them.  They saw getting out as the only way to continue slavery.

They pushed their states to leave after the election of 1860 not because they disputed the results.  They recognized that Lincoln had been duly elected.  What the slavocrats feared was that under his administration and his support in Congress their ability to preserve slavery would be irreparably eroded and eventually ended.  They sought to exit the Union before that happened.

By necessity, forming a “more perfect union” under the Constitution required compromise to accommodate diverse peoples and experiences.  The miracle of the Founders was to bring all the states in.  Compromise and accommodation are at the heart of a republic. 

There is an art to compromise.  I saw that during the days of the Reagan administration.  President Reagan was a highly principled man, yet he often compromised.  I marveled how, in his compromising, he resisted compromise of principle.  Again and again he advanced his principles while accommodating on details.   

The Founders establishing a Constitution sought to preserve essential principles by which a government of liberty would act.  A key example was the slave trade.  Some vociferously argued for its end.  Slave state representatives argued for the matter to be left to individual states.  The Constitution enshrined the national principle that the slave trade must end.  Placing regulation of trade in general with Congress, the compromise set 1808 for the complete end of the slave trade.

A similarly important example where compromise embraced the principle was the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives.  The number of a state’s representatives was based on population.  Representatives from slave states wanted to count slaves.  Others objected that if your state treats these people as property, then they should not be counted any more than other property.  The principle in the compromise was to recognize the humanity of people held in slavery, but to count a person only as three-fifths for congressional apportionment so long as he was held in slavery, reducing southern congressional representation.

With these two compromises, resting on anti-slavery principles, all the states came into the union, accepting a Constitution that would progressively lead to abolition.  As the reality of that became abundantly clear to the leadership of eleven of the states, they tried to renege on the deal and leave.  The slavocrats failed.  Rather than let the Constitution end slavery peacefully, they forced a horrid war that ended it all the sooner, but at the cost of more than 600,000 dead, greater than the total of Americans killed in both World Wars I and II. 

The power of the principles of the Constitution continued its work.  Amidst a Civil War that, in the words of Lincoln, tested “whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure,” elections were held.  The voters chose liberty and the nation endured.

The American Founders were sober people, sobered by a long and difficult war of Independence followed by several years of economic and social confusion.  They understood that people were flawed and make mistakes.  They believed that people are also good, who can and do make good decisions.  The Constitution on which they established the United States recognizes and is designed to offset the bad and allow good to succeed, which it more often than not does.  

Tested by myriad difficulties and unparalleled prosperity, the Constitution has worked better than any other system of government on earth.  That is why enemies of freedom hate it and why so many people want to come here to live.

Of Overreaching Concerns and Asset Allegation

Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash

What is in a word?  That is an old question.  Often what is in the word may not be what the author intended.  The result can be humorous, and sometimes insightful.

Before retiring from the American Bankers Association, I became acquainted with a couple of examples where perhaps the wrong word presented an insightful meaning.  Listening to a seminar broadcast I heard the speaker explain the “overreaching concern” of his particular program.  Since the beginning of the Great Cessation and related lockdowns, I have heard many overreaching concerns expressed.  Perhaps we may learn from them.

On another occasion, in reference to money management, I became acquainted similarly by insightful accident with the term “asset allegation.”  I think that many a loan officer or bank examiner has had to come to terms with cases of asset allegation.

In 1775 the English playwright Richard Brinsley Sheridan introduced us to Mrs. Malaprop, who delightfully uses words in unintended ways, at least unintended by whoever created the words.  His play, “The Rivals,” is a classic of English comedy.  In one example, Mrs. Malaprop, trying to convince her niece to give up on a young man of interest, expresses the wish that Lydia, the niece, would “illiterate him” from her memory.  In recent days, I think that we have all come across efforts by some to “illiterate” events from our historical memory.  Much to her happiness, Lydia ignored the advice.

Mrs. Malaprop, quite displeased with Lydia’s response, cautions her niece not to “extirpate” herself from the matter, explaining to the young girl that Malaprop has “proof controvertible” for her case.  Again, in recent days many have indeed been called upon to “extirpate” themselves or their ideas, prodded by noisy voices supported by much “proof controvertible.”

In conversation, discussing what she considers proper education, Mrs. Malaprop recommends boarding school, where the student could obtain “a supercilious knowledge in accounts”.  I may admit that considering the CECL financial accounting rule, I have been tempted to wonder to what degree “a supercilious knowledge in accounts” might have had a role in its development.

I would also wonder, as I compare the variety of approaches across the globe to the current virus, whether some policymakers were subjected to Mrs. Malaprop’s advice that youth be “instructed in geometry” that they “might know something of the contagious countries”.

As a final reference, of many wonderful examples in the play, I would call upon Mrs. Malaprop’s advice that proper education of Lydia might lead the dear niece to “reprehend the true meaning of what she is saying.”  I have heard and read many things in recent days by many people and mused whether the time would arrive when these people would come to reprehend the true meaning of what they were saying. 

In my days of Civil War reenacting I became familiar with the Union song, “Grafted Into the Army.”  Composed by Henry Clay Work, it pretends to be written in the words of a widow, immigrant to the United States, lamenting her son Jimmy being “grafted” into the army.  Military jargon can be difficult enough for those not in the army, even more so for someone arrived in a new society.  Jimmy’s mother does express pride in her son “Dressed up in his unicorn.”  Intended to provide lighthearted moments in a dark time, the song also tells of the widow mother complaining at “the captain’s fore-quarters” about her son being too young.  Many sons were too young, and too many did not return.  Mixed in the mirth is the sad message that Jimmy’s “brothers fell / Way down in Alabarmy.”

An anecdote from dining at a restaurant:  I had occasion to visit the restroom.  The following instruction, printed in large letters, was displayed prominently over the sink:  Employees must wash hands.  I waited there some minutes, pondering the appearance lately of many strange requirements, but at last I gained the courage to break the rule and washed my hands myself.

Of Presidents and Derelicts

Barack Obama is no fan of the Constitution.  He has been known to criticize it for its focus on limiting government, for telling governments what they can and cannot do.  He prefers a Constitution that focuses more on telling governments what they should do, at least telling governments to do what he would like, including seeing to the “redistribution of wealth,” or what he calls elsewhere “redistributive change.”

Of course, that is a mischaracterization.  Not a mischaracterization of Obama’s views but of what the Constitution says.  It does limit government, but it also gives government specific responsibilities and the power to exercise those responsibilities.  Article I, Section 8 provides a very clear list of the federal government’s duties.  It is noteworthy that those enumerated responsibilities and powers are in the Article that establishes the Congress.  The list includes such things as providing for the common defense, borrowing and paying government debts, regulating foreign and interstate commerce, establishing standards for weights and measures, and so forth.

There are plenty of other provisions that limit the powers of the government and how it operates.  The Constitution is a balance of governmental duties within a structure intended carefully to limit the government.  As a limited government our Republic has prospered.  It has struggled either when its duties were neglected (as in the days of President Buchanan, who did nothing while he watched state after state rebel from the Union) or when the limitations have been eroded (as we have witnessed through much of the twentieth century and in the first 14 years of the twenty-first).

The President has specific powers and duties, too, nearly all of which are carefully linked with the role of the Congress.  For example, while the President does not make the laws—Article I, Section 1 gives “All legislative Powers” exclusively to the Congress—the President is authorized to make proposals to Congress and has the authority to veto legislation (but not change it) that Congress has approved.  Once an act of Congress becomes law, the President then has the explicit obligation to, “take Care that the Laws be fully executed” (Article II, Section 3).  

Note the words, “fully executed”.  The President takes an oath to fulfill those duties, and nowhere in oath or Constitution is the President authorized to execute the laws only as much as he likes or agrees with them.  Once something has become a law, the President may not set aside this or that part of the law or decide that he will only enforce the law so far.  His obligation is to take Care that the laws are fully executed.

Average Americans may not like this or that provision of law, but we are not at liberty to ignore any law that applies to us just because we do not like it.  The President is not exempt from that common responsibility of all citizens, either. As the chief government executive, who sought to hold his high office of public responsibility, he is even more obligated not only to obey the laws but to execute them, fully.  The President may not make the laws, he may not amend the laws, he may not change the laws, and he may not disregard the laws.  His duty is to execute the laws, and when he does not he is derelict in his duties. 

This is all in accordance with the important division of labor, the separation of powers that the Founders put into the very structure of the Constitution to combat the tendency of all humans to abuse power once it comes into their hands.  By dividing the power of government among three separate but coequal branches, dividing legislative power even further between House and Senate, and yet again separating government power between federal and state governments, the Founders went to clear and elaborate lengths to create checks and balances. 

Under the American system of government no branch, no person, no group of people in government, are to be able to do very much on their own without getting the other elements of government to go along.  Where they are not able to agree, where there is no consensus, for the safety of our freedoms government is prevented by constitutional law from moving forward unless substantial consensus among the different branches can be reached.  Those checks and balances again and again, throughout the more than two centuries of our Constitution, have forced the very human people in government to revisit their differences and come to terms with one another, however much they may disagree and be disagreeable.  There is safety for you and me in that.  And it helps keep our Union together, repeatedly forcing our leaders (and the parts of the nation that they represent and whose authority they exercise) to work with one another, like it or not.

Recently, President Obama has expressed impatience with the Constitution’s checks and balances.  After all, he personally, in and of himself, embodies an entire branch of government.  The other branches, Congress and the courts, have many different people with a messy variety of ideas.  President Obama complains that Congress cannot decide what it wants to do as quickly as he can.  In his view, why wait? 

By design, Congress of course has something of a multiple personality.  It is a gathering of elected representatives, reflecting the diversity of views among the people of the nation.  Appropriately, it takes time to build a consensus that accommodates those views, as it should.  But President Obama cannot wait.  He sees the need to accommodate no ideas other than his own.  He has decided that on this issue or that—today it is immigration laws—there is a limit, defined by himself, as to how much time Congress can take to consider things.  When time is up, he, the executive branch, will take the matter into his own hands, and pretend to the authority to do it.

His tool of choice today is to abjure his duty to execute the laws fully and instead to execute them partially, just to the extent and manner that suit his own desires, as he engages in another round of redistributive change.  That he is endeavoring to violate rather than execute our national, founding law, and his constitutional oath of office, apparently does not trouble him.  It is the Constitution itself that troubles him. 

But from where does he think he gets his authority to do anything.  When he breaks the Constitution, does he not break his very authority to act in the office that the Constitution created?

Of Self Determination and Carving Up the World

Woodrow Wilson unleashed some nasty asps of public policy on the world, the venom of which continues to work its misery on mankind.  Professor Wilson as President pushed into practice the idea that American governance should be shifted from the people who elect Senators and representatives and entrusted instead to a cadre of wise men in the executive branch.  Experts like himself, elite college professors and their best students, would know better how to manage the affairs of others than would the teaming masses of the nation left to make their own decisions. 

Today, thousands of regulations, uncounted yards of red tape, and millions of bureaucrats later, we all live within a shrinking sphere of personal liberty, with diminishing control of our lives, permitted to make few decisions without someone we do not know having a major say in so much of what we have and do.  Increasing numbers of our neighbors have effectively been rendered wards of the state, unable to manage their own lives without dependence upon a myriad of government programs that punish individual initiative and grind up families.  Today, the most reliable predictor of poverty in America is being a single mother.  Lured into the web of sweet-sounding sticky federal, state, and even local programs that promise help, these government victims are rarely delivered from poverty, and neither are their children or their grandchildren.  This is surely not what Woodrow Wilson intended, but it is surely what his model of governance by experts has delivered.  Obamacare is one of the most recent and obvious examples of this machinery of misery.

Yet it can be argued that nothing that Woodrow Wilson bequeathed has worked more harm than the destructive principle of “self determination,” imposed by Wilson and his international experimenters at the negotiations to rearrange the world after World War I.  Of course, he did not act alone, but Wilson did much to make the world safe for World War II.  Self determination worked its evil by institutionalizing perpetual turmoil in eastern Europe and the Balkans, as bickering and unstable micro-states created a power vacuum tempting for fuehrers and commissars to fill.

The concept of self determination can seem appealing as long as you do not pause long enough to consider how it might actually play out in practice and over time.  The basic idea—and it does not go very far past this basic idea—is that every group of people has the right to find its own place in the sun, either with its own government or subject to another, whichever the group might wish. 

It was this idea that Russian boss Vladimir Putin invoked to cloak his grab of Crimea.  The people of Crimea had a vote (carefully monitored by Russian troops) in which over 95% said that they wanted to break away from Ukraine.  And then they decided, almost the next day, that they wanted to become a part of Russia.  According to the Russian Government, this was all very legal and in keeping with international law.  It was self determination.  Who could object?  It was more than faintly reminiscent of the nearly unanimous votes in the nations of eastern Europe a generation ago—when occupied by the Red Army—in favor of communist regimes closely allied with the old Soviet Union.  More self determination.

I wonder whether Professor/President Woodrow Wilson thought of how his principle of self determination would have worked in American history?  What if Wilson instead of Lincoln had been President in 1861?  Did self determination apply to the people of the southern states who wished to leave the Union?

I also wonder how dedicated Vladimir Putin really is to the principle of self determination?  If it applies to Crimea, does it also apply to the people of Chechnya, who seem to be eager to be out of Russia?  Are there other minority populations in Russia yearning to breathe free? 

How about elsewhere in the world?  Is self determination a universal principle worthy of universal application?  Are Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran ready to let the Kurdish minorities carve up their countries and realize their dream of a new Kurdistan?  How about Muslim minorities in southern islands of the Philippines?  The Tamil populated northern Sri Lanka?  The Sunni-majority communities in Shiite majority Iraq?  The multitude of tribal groupings in virtually every country of sub-Saharan Africa?  Are all of the many minorities of China content with being governed by Beijing?

When would the bloodletting of self determination ever end?  It has not ended yet, whether used as a justification for aggression or as a means of sustaining discontent.  It is a ponderous legacy.

Of War and Virtue

One hundred fifty years ago the United States remained divided in a brutal war of rebellion.  Rather than unusual, such convulsions are typical in the establishment of representative republics.  It does not come easy for a population new to a republic to embrace in practice the idea that matters of life and wealth should be resolved by votes.  It seems that the age old recourse to arms and blood has to be tried again a time or two before people, who have only experienced more abusive government, come to accept that ballots and representation, enshrined in the rule of law, are a better way of deciding a society’s important issues.

One hundred fifty years ago, in 1864, the people of the young United States were still learning that painful lesson.  But the instruction was nearing its end.  Back in July of 1863, at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the outcome of the war became inevitable.  The rebels of the southern states were going to lose, constitutional government of the United States was going to succeed.  The only chance for the rebels would be if the loyal people of the nation lost their determination to persevere to reunite the nation and reaffirm the constitutional republic.  Often that seemed in the press to be an iffy question, but in reality the republican will remained strong.  The hundreds of thousands who sacrificed life and limb in the field of war, in an overwhelmingly volunteer army (the number of drafted soldiers remained relatively minor), testified to that determination.

In the winter of 1863-64 U.S. soldiers in the field reenlisted in large numbers.  Throughout 1864, and into the Spring of 1865, many thousands more would die, but the battles were becoming increasingly futile for the rebel cause, little more than adding to the destruction and suffering that rebel commanders were pulling down upon themselves and their fellows and families in this national lesson in self-government.

For the rebel soldier, experiencing defeat after defeat to his regiment, his corps, or his tattered army—with only occasional respites and temporary successes—it all may have felt pointless.  The high and growing rate of desertion from rebel armies in those days suggests so.  The historian comes to this point in the conflict and is tempted to describe the remaining rebel heroics and gallant but failing defenses as futile, the casualty lists a bloody tally of worthless and wasted sacrifice—particularly for so ignoble a cause as breaking up the best form of government on the earth at the time.

From the perspective of the rebel “cause” it was pointless, the continued bloodshed and destruction a burden for which the rebel leaders—in the rebel government and at the head of the rebel armies—will surely have to give an accounting before the Judge who weighs the doings of nations and those who lead them.  Does that mean, therefore, that the daily struggle of the individual rebel soldier was meaningless?  His effort could not change the outcome, only affect in some small way its overall cost.

And yet, throughout 1864 and to the end of the war, there were meaningful and often pitched battles fought on every field of action.  The battles to which I refer echo a passage from The Book of Mormon written almost two thousand years before, describing an ancient American people after a very long war:

But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility.  (Alma 62:41)

War, on a very personal level, appears to accelerate moral development.  Individuals become more virtuous or more evil more quickly than they might under more peaceful conditions.

I believe that for the individual rebel soldier, as for perhaps every soldier, the real battle was his own, and in the end it was the most important battle with the most long-lasting consequences.  Abraham Lincoln understated that the world would “little note, nor long remember” his speech at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery, though he perhaps correctly predicted that the world would never forget the great battle fought there. 

In the full scheme of things, in terms of what really matters in the eternal worlds after this temporary one is rolled up and its purposes completed, the individual battles fought by each soldier on each side will be recognized as far more important than the whole Battle of Gettysburg.  The battle of armies is a temporary one.  The battle fought by each soldier, whether he exercises virtues or chooses vices, is the more permanent, the one that has never ending consequences.  The battles of freedom were fought in recognition and preservation of these more important personal struggles we all have.

In the battles of 1864 and 1865 of the American War of the Rebellion the rebel soldier could not change the outcome of the war.  But in each case his own personal triumph or defeat was there to be etched into his character more permanently than the scars of bullet and saber in his flesh.

As my son has often reminded me, everyone who fought in the Civil War died.  And all of them lived.  So must we all die, and yet we will all live again where there is no more death.  By the time each of us leaves mortality, each must face and fight his battles, the ones that really matter far above those recorded in the history books of the world.

Of War and Freedom

Independence Day 2013 had perhaps a more than usual significance for our national holiday.  On that day, 150 years before, the Army of the Potomac waited on the hills and ridges south of Gettysburg for a rebel assault that did not come.  Though General Meade and his officers and soldiers were unaware of it that morning, the rebel army was beaten, after three fruitless days of attacking the soldiers of the United States to clear a path to Philadelphia, Baltimore, or even Washington itself.  Instead, Robert E. Lee was engaged on July 4, 1863, in plans to extricate what was left of his army from Pennsylvania and get it across the Potomac and into Virginia before it could be destroyed.

On that same day a thousand miles to the southeast, the rebel army in Vicksburg, Mississippi, surrendered to the U.S. Army and General U.S. Grant.  It was strategically an even more important victory.  The fall of that rebel stronghold would lead to the free navigation of the entire Mississippi River, from its source to the Gulf of Mexico, for all shipping loyal to the United States, and it divided the rebel Confederacy in two.

As Grant reflected later in his Memoirs,

The fate of the Confederacy was sealed when Vicksburg fell.  Much hard fighting was to be done afterwards and many precious lives were to be sacrificed; but the morale was with the supporters of the Union ever after.  (Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, p.297)

Some who are not friends of the United States Constitution make the false claim that the War of the Rebellion was clear evidence that the Constitution was hopelessly flawed, that the war revealed the weakness of the American government rather than its strength.  Such critics little understand history or what a rare thing it is for nations—or rather the people of nations—to learn to be willing to settle issues of life, death, and livelihood by the casting of ballots.  It is an acquired discipline. 

Consider how very few democracies or republics have been established and accepted by the populace without the people being convinced by bloody war and rebellion that deciding issues by votes and law is superior to trying them by force.  England had many civil wars and rebellions on its way to rule by parliaments instead of kings.  France, too, went through several revolutions before its current Fifth Republic achieved political stability.  The Weimar Republic of Germany teetered for some fifteen years until it descended into the Third Reich, and only upon ruins was a stable federal republic built.  Japan at last settled for meaningful republican government after its military dictatorship completely prostrated the nation in World War II.  Republican government was only months old when the Bolsheviks replaced it with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the verdict is not yet in as to whether the Russian nation has embraced free republican government even now.  Similar stories can be told all across the globe, about China, Korea, Turkey, Mexico, and many other lands that through trauma and struggle came today to be governed by leaders chosen by the people limited in their authority by viable constitutions.

But if the American War of the Rebellion demonstrated the challenges to constitutional government in the first one hundred years of the Republic, it also showed its strength.  That can be illustrated by what its critics consider its most damning flaw, for they denounce the document for enshrining human chattel slavery instead of abolishing it.  In this they are entirely wrong.  The Constitution took the thirteen new American states as they were in the late eighteenth century and brought them into a society of constitutional freedom incompatible with slavery, where the operations of that Constitution would sooner or later bring slavery to an end.

It is true that there are provisions in the Constitution as adopted in 1787 that recognized slavery.  That was the price for bringing the slave-holding states into the Union within the structure of the Constitution.  That very Constitution, however, made it impossible for slavery in the United States to endure.  Four score and seven years after the Declaration of Independence, war waged by the people under that very Constitution was abolishing legal slavery in America.  Perhaps there was a time when it might have ended peacefully, but peacefully or not, slavery in the United States had to end.

As Abraham Lincoln predicted at the 1858 Illinois Republican Convention, “I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.  I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided.  It will become all one thing, or all the other.”  I believe that Lincoln knew which would triumph, but I do not know that he suspected that he would be the constitutional officer that would see that the Union was not dissolved and that all of the United States would become free.

By  the end of 1860, slaveholders knew that they could not retain slavery if they stayed under the Constitution.  Sooner or later, the votes would be cast to end the practice.  The slaveholders chose to rebel and get out from under the Constitution before its principles of human freedom inexorably overcame them.  But once under the Constitution, it was too late to leave.  Under the organization of the Constitution, the armies of the Republic were organized and put down the rebellion and slavery, holding congresses and conducting elections along the way.

The War of the Rebellion did not free the land from enemies of freedom and constitutional law. Those who would impose their will on their neighbors remain with us today.  Their freedom is protected by the Constitution.  But the Constitution has ever stood in the way of their plans to subjugate their fellows, and it will continue to do so as long as it is upheld.  Hence the relentless efforts to undermine it, to claim it a flawed document, or pronounce it a “living document,” changeable at the whim of politicians and judges who are allowed to raise their own will above its meaning.  Our devotion to that Constitution, if we are to remain free, cannot be any less than that of those who fought at Gettysburg and other battles of freedom.  As we remember them, it is our turn to show “increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion”.

Of the Constitution and the Ever-Fresh Idea of Freedom

It seems that the days of trial and testing of our Constitution are not over.  Perhaps they never will be until the Author of the Constitution returns to the earth.  The Obamacare statutes unfold as the time approaches when people will be required to buy government-designed health insurance whether they want it or not.  The Environmental Protection Agency continues to impose on industry rules that Congress refused to pass.  The new financial consumer czar, with no meaningful oversight or accountability, exercises his will to design financial services for all Americans, even though he was put in office by a recess appointment made when the Senate was not in recess (skipping the uncomfortable Senate confirmation process).  There is more, but these examples represent the challenge.

Under the inspiration of God, the Founders established the Constitution to protect, preserve, and indeed promote the rights of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That is the legitimate purpose of government, as the Founders inscribed in the Declaration of Independence, considering it self-evident,

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed,

that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In this effort the Founders twice abolished and instituted new basic forms of government.  The first was to throw off their allegiance to the Crown of England and control by his Parliament.  The second was to exchange the loose and ineffective Articles of Confederation with the new Constitution.

The Constitution was and remains a revolutionary document.  With footings based solidly on the indestructible rights and worth of the individual members of the society, it was unlike anything anywhere on the earth at the time.  At the core of the Constitution, and affecting all of its members, are the overriding and animating principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, constantly at war with and destructive of all forms of tyranny. 

Among the first fruits of the Constitution was the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, all so wholly consistent with the Constitution that the only objection raised to them was that they were redundant to the basic text that they amended.  Maybe they were redundant, but time has proven the wisdom of spelling out these powerful and important rights of the individual.

They were soon challenged.  Once in government it is natural and expected that government leaders would become progressively intolerant of criticism and opposition.  Government “of the people” does not make government automatically friendly to the people and tolerant of their freedoms.  We see it today, every day.  In 1798 the Federalist Party leaders in government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, inimical to the Constitution, in significant part to silence opposition voices from the new Democratic-Republican Party.  The Acts sought to declare criticism of public figures to be libelous, punishable by fines and imprisonment.  Under these unconstitutional statutes newspapermen were arrested and their newspapers stopped, among other outrages to liberty.    

Fortunately, the Constitution was not impotent to throw off this new effort to impose an old tyranny on the nation.  Thomas Jefferson led a popular revolt through the elections of 1800 to expel the Federalists from office, repeal these statutes, and launch a renewed spirit of governing focused on individual rights and liberties.

In succeeding years the inconsistency of human slavery with the principles of the Constitution grew increasingly acute, until in 1861 the leadership of most of the slave-holding states concluded that it would be impossible to maintain their “peculiar institution” if they remained governed by the Constitution.  They understood that they could maintain slavery or observe the Constitution, but not both.  Eventually, the spirit of freedom at the core of the Constitution would work to end slavery, by operation of the very constitutional system. 

Since the Union created by the Constitution would not allow the states to leave peacefully and take their slaves with them, the southern leadership invoked rebellion as the only way out.  Theirs, however, was a rebellion to invoke and support tyranny, and it failed.  The revolutionary American Constitution and the people on whom it rested won yet one more victory for freedom.  As Abraham Lincoln perceived, the war of the rebellion was a test of “whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”

That nation, conceived in constitutional liberty, did endure that test, but the tests never end.  There are ever those who believe that they have the privilege, the calling, the right, or even the duty, to impose their will and judgment on others in ways destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Not every assault on freedom and the Constitution fails. There have been too many that have succeeded.  So far the Constitution and the people who uphold it have withstood these assaults, even if at great cost.  The Supreme Court’s outrageous Dred Scott decision and the foolish Kansas-Nebraska Act were last gasp efforts to perpetuate the tyranny of slavery, but in the end they sparked the birth of the Republican Party and fed the Civil War that removed slavery and extended the reach of the principles of the Declaration and Constitution.

Today as a nation we face the sputtering final efforts of the Franklin Roosevelt legacy to enthrone government as the source of solution to people’s problems—and to buy popularity with government-laundered largesse confiscated from a dwindling pool of taxpayers.  That is a hoary practice of kings and Caesars that buys time but no lasting success.  The money always runs out before the promises do. 

The question that remains for us and for our Constitution is how well will we as a people, and our Constitution as a system of government, weather the demise of the New Deal system.  Acute test of freedom approaches again, if not already here, when we will determine whether our “nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.”  I have confidence that it will, and—in the words of Lincoln—that the American people will decide “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” as it has in all of its greatest tests so far.

Of Aliens in Washington and the National Symbols

Driving into Washington, D.C., each day, it is easy to become blindly accustomed to the rich symbols that delight and inspire the more infrequent visitor.  Occasionally, such as when the choke of traffic allows reflective moments, or the morning light or evening illuminations stimulate more meditative inspiration, even the hardened local can again be moved by the monuments of the nation’s capital.

One such recent morning, as reflections led to marveling at our wonderful and unique nation, and musing followed musing, I was struck by how out of line the Obama Administration is with all of these symbols and what they mean.  The differences between the symbols and the resident reality are not minor.  It is as if some group of aliens had taken dominion of the Capital of Freedom.

Consider an example a mere few days old.  In Barack Obama’s most recent weekly radio address he made the following statement.  Read it carefully.

It’s time to build a nation that lives up to the ideals that so many Americans have fought for—a nation where they can realize the dream they sacrificed to protect.

The address was entitled, “Honoring Our Nation’s Service Members and Military Families”.  Its main thrust was to provide that honor through more federal spending on “roads and runways and ports.”  Apparently, President Obama’s view is that this is what our soldiers, sailors, and airmen have been fighting for, or as he said, “That’s how we can honor our troops.”

Back to the highlighted quote, however, the rhetorical apogee of the speech.  Aside from the President’s revelation that he had tarmac in mind when he envisioned the dreams of our veterans, there is the declaration that, “It’s time to build a nation”.  Why would the President of the United States of America declare that now is the time to build our nation?  What does he consider to have happened in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was boldly adopted?  Was it not then that the building of the nation began?  What does he believe that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and the many other Founders did?  What does he consider was the purpose of the Constitution if not “to form a more perfect Union”?  Does he believe that America has been waiting for Barack Obama to begin the building? 

It is hard to escape the impression that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are in meaningful ways alien to the current President, that he does not recognize what they wrought.  For President Obama, now is the time to build the nation.  Apparently, he does not like what he sees. What kind of alternative nation does Barack Obama want to build? 

I suspect that what my father fought for in two wars was akin to the ideals embodied in our national symbols, not more government construction projects.  I doubt that in France, Germany, or Korea he ever spent a single moment imagining that he was risking his life for new highways.

Which brings me back to my musings on the highways of the federal city.  I see the Lincoln Memorial, in which the words from President Lincoln’s last address to the nation are inscribed, proclaiming malice toward none while seeking to unite a nation and bind up the nation’s wounds.  I contrast that with the current President and his long list of those he labels enemies:  big oil, big banks, big insurance, big medicine, business in general, the world’s financial center in New York, people of strong religious conviction, among others.  Instead of unifying the nation, it is impossible to avoid his constant efforts to divide the nation into racial, ethnic, and interest groups, as if the citizens of the United States are black, or white, or rich, or poor, first and Americans second.

From almost anywhere in Washington you can see the Washington Monument, soaring over 500 feet high.  The monument is simple and unadorned, symbolizing the man declared by mourners at his death as, “First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” who set the pattern for freedom protected by limited government, where government office was a service to the nation and its people.  In little more than the last three years we have instead experienced an unprecedented accretion of power to the government in Washington.  Government workers make decisions reaching into nearly every aspect of people’s lives, even as the President declares that the achievements of individuals are as much or more the work of government than the fruits of their own efforts.  Rejecting the example of George Washington, who turned aside a crown and walked away from generalship and public office into quiet retirement, President Obama fosters an imperial cult of personality, where the light of every achievement, real or imaginary, is focused on himself.

Ringing the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are Jefferson’s words, “I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”  Today we have a presidency filthy with politically correct speech, that pounces on any words of opponents that can be made to appear at odds with the official doctrines of the administration.  Instead of free speech and open debate, the President declares that for his priorities, such as global warming, health care, financial legislation, “the debate is over.”

In H.G. Wells’ classic science fiction story, The War of the Worlds, the invading aliens are at last destroyed by simple bacteria in the air and water that men breathe and drink, defeated, “after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth.”  Was our Declaration of Independence correct that God has placed similar protections in our society, the heavenly endowed unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”?  Will these simple, fundamental rights will out and preserve our nation from our present alien occupation?  They may, if we employ them as the Founders did.

Of Democracies and Demagogues

The demagogue has ever been the bane of democracies.  By definition, democracies rest upon the choices of the people.  When wisdom guides, democracies prosper.  As history shows, wisdom does not always prevail, and it never does when demagogues do.  Since the demagogue seeks his own power by taking power from others, once the people give him their voice they will be hard-pressed to get their power back; the democracy deteriorates into dictatorship, invoked in the name but never the reality of the rights of the people.

Why would a free people yield their power to the tyranny of the demagogue?  It is not reasonable to place your own hands and feet in fetters.  In every successful democracy there is a balance between reason and emotion.  Rather than advise wisdom, demagogues appeal to the basest popular emotions to overcome reason.  American Founder, James Madison, drawing lessons from the best known democracy of history, the democracy of Athens, warned Americans of the danger:

      In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason.  Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.

(James Madison, Federalist no. 55, as quoted in John Samples, “James Madison’s Vision of Liberty,” Cato Policy Report, Vol.XXIII No.2, March/April 2001, p.12)

Madison recognized that in groups fiery emotion can make for a more persuasive pitch than cooler reason can.  He recommended the Constitution as a defense against demagogues, a structure of fundamental limitations on government and against those who would seek to govern by preying upon the passions of the people.  The formula has worked and the Constitution has held—against many trials, including a Civil War—for more than 200 years. 

The typical demagogue is a forceful speaker who seeks power by stirring up the people, whom he sees as masses to be manipulated and managed rather than as a body politic of reasonable individuals.  It does not particularly matter which emotions are invoked against reason; the most successful demagogues draw upon a variety.  Perhaps the emotion most powerful to the ends of the demagogue is fear, but he will also use hatred, avarice, envy, sorrow, vanity, vengeance, vainglory, among others.  He will even try to invoke love, though love is hard to make compatible with the demagogue’s message of contention, but it can be used to garner sympathy and to get people to let down their guard against an appeal to baser emotions.

Are Americans and the American constitutional democracy perpetually proof against the demagoguery that has destroyed democracies before?  The Founders did not think so.  A popular watch phrase among them was, “eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty”.  They were referring more to internal dangers than dangers from foreign enemies.

How do we keep watch on the threshold of the 21^st Century?  Here are ten tests to help unmask the demagogue:

• He gives powerful, emotional speeches, as public speaking is one of his most powerful tools.  “Facts” will usually play a minor role in the speech, and when used will often either be half-truths or outright lies, sometimes very big lies with passionate appeal.
• As discussed, emotion rather than reason predominates in his arguments, with fear the most prevalent emotion.
• He conjures up apocalyptic dangers and manipulates crises (and creates them when none are readily available).  The sky seems to be always about to fall.
• Riding on the wave of crisis, he will offer sweeping “action plans” that would cede to him major powers and authorities and push aside sources of opposition.  “Forward” is the frequent cry shouted to drown out objections, “the debate is over.”  (In a real democracy, can the debate ever be “over”?)
• He dishonors the Constitution and violates it without regret; the Constitution and demagoguery are incompatible.  Neither can survive while the other prospers, to paraphrase J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter formula for her fictional demagogue.
• He accuses others of employing his own despicable tactics.  In order to create fog and camouflage, and blunt criticism of his own actions, the demagogue will often claim opponents are lying, fomenting contention, engaging in petty partisanship, and so on, all the while employing those tactics himself.  Note that the accusations will usually employ an appeal to sentiment.
• He points to enemies of the people, enemies that his plans will vanquish.  These enemies are usually chosen to evoke emotion, such as “big business” to foster fear, “the rich” to stir envy, race or ethnic divisions to feed hate.
• He calls for unity while proposing plans that divide the nation, opponents of his plans being cast as those who would seek to divide a nation that would be unified by agreeing with him.  Issues are chosen that find and feed emotional fissures in public opinion.  Most effective, the demagogue will propose to take something of value from a group in a minority and “share” it with the group whose favor he seeks, such as targeted taxes or confiscations to provide some popular benefit.
• Following on that point, he develops classes of supporters dependent upon what he promises to give them from the government, benefits that will need his continued care to be sustained.  That is what lies at the core of the difficulty in fixing problems with welfare, Medicare, and Social Security, and why the demagogues have a field day when anyone offers reasonable proposals to deal with these very real issues.
• He hates a free and independent press that raises objections of fact and evidence to challenge the emotional appeal, but he loves an obliging press that magnifies his message and drowns out dissident appeals to reason.

It is not hard to recognize demagogues among us today appealing for ascendancy.  Democracy in our day demands that we retain our freedom and that we do not yield.  More than our freedom is in the balance, but our freedom is in the balance.

Of Easter and the Constitution

One morning in Tennessee, 150 years ago, many thousand U.S. soldiers were quietly enjoying breakfast on a beautiful spring Sabbath, thinking of little more than passing a quiet Palm Sunday and sometime soon thereafter continuing the destruction of the rebel army in nearby Corinth, Mississippi.  That was, until the rebels came calling and rudely interrupted breakfast.

By the end of the battle the next day the rebels were in full retreat, but over 13,000 Union soldiers were dead, wounded, or missing, and nearly 11,000 rebels had met the same fate.  Shiloh turned out to be a major victory for the United States Army, opening up nearly the whole western part of the rebel confederacy to invasion.  The impact of the victory was missed by much of the population of the loyal states, however, whose senses reeled from a bill of losses of husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers never seen before in the life of the Republic.  General U.S. Grant, whose coolness under pressure made the victory possible, was mercilessly criticized in the press.

The nation little understood that the casualties of Shiloh would be only the first of many tens of thousands more who would suffer from civil war in the land of Washington and Jefferson before 1862 would be over.  Then there would be 1863, 1864, and 1865 to follow, running the tally of destruction ever higher.  In 1865, near the end of the war, Abraham Lincoln summed up in his marvelous second inaugural address—for a term of office that would last the rest of his life, less than 6 weeks—“Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. . . . Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding.”

All Americans today benefit from that profound victory and the others that brought an end to the rebellion and that upheld the Constitution.  It was a strange and new thing for the world that the words on a piece of paper, written by men of an earlier generation, could create a system of government and affect so many lives.  It was the lives of those who fought to sustain the Constitution that gave it that life, men who insisted on living by those words and organizing a free society within the protections of its provisions.

The same is true today, as with each generation:  we are called upon to uphold that Constitution, those words on a piece of paper, and hand it on down, as strong as ever, to our children.  Those men who died at Shiloh cannot do our work for us today.  Neither can the men who fought and died in Europe and the South Pacific and on many other places of battle.  Just as important as those who died to preserve the Constitution are those who have lived to maintain the Constitution.  They, however, could do no more than pass that freedom under constitutional law to us.  We have it today.  What will we do with it?

As Ronald Reagan taught in his 1967 inaugural address as Governor of California,

Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.

We must not let it become extinct.  It is under challenge from enemies without, who hate the freedom and worth of the individual enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and it is endangered by those within the nation—some in very high places of power and responsibility— who see the Constitution as a barrier in the way of their plans to replace individual rights, value, initiative, and worth with the ages old system where the government and the governors run the lives of the people and decide who wins, who loses, who gets what, and how much.

Our forebears fought a revolution and crafted a new system in the New World to get away from that rule by the few.  The lesson we need to learn anew, is that it is the job of the many individuals who make up each generation to win that freedom again, because there will always be those eager to impose their will on others and use and direct and take the resources that they themselves did not earn, who will want to have their way with other people’s money and other people’s lives.

No one’s sacrifice is the same as anyone else’s.  Read no unfairness in that, because to sacrifice is to absorb unfairness.  But we cannot avoid the call to sacrifice.  Not even Christ, the greatest of all, could.

As we celebrate Easter we should remember the sacrifices of the Savior, by which He absorbed all unfairness.  Those sacrifices made Easter possible, by which all that is wrong is overcome and ultimate freedom bought for each person born into this world.  We are privileged by Christ to be given the chance to join in that effort to preserve and extend the blessings of freedom to our families, our friends, and to people we do not know and may never meet.

At Gethsemane, then Golgotha, and from the Garden Tomb, Christ has created the framework that makes freedom possible.  He inspired the founders who built a nation of freedom as the beacon to all mankind that it has been for over 200 years.  As our Easter worship, let us take up the last call given by Abraham Lincoln to the nation as the Constitution was reaffirmed in struggle, who recognized the great value of America for the world:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Of Abraham Lincoln and Another Birth of Freedom

On the 203^rd anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln—to our national embarrassment a day no longer celebrated as a national holiday—I once again picked up a copy of the compelling lecture by Walter Berns, commemorating the bicentennial of Lincoln’s birth.  Delivered on February 9, 2009, at the American Enterprise Institute, Berns’ lecture concluded with these words:

We say that a man can be known by the company he keeps.  So I say that a nation, a people, can be known and be judged by its heroes, by whom it honors above all others.

We pay ourselves the greatest compliment when we say that Abraham Lincoln is that man for us. 

(Walter Berns, “Lincoln at Two Hundred:  Why We Still Read the Sixteenth President,” AEI Bradley Lecture, February 9, 2009)

Berns offers a compelling statistic as a measure of the nation’s recognition of Lincoln and his greatness:

            More has been written about Abraham Lincoln than about any other president or, for that matter, any other American.  The amount is prodigious:  no fewer than16,000 books and goodness knows how many journal articles.

Abraham Lincoln was president for slightly more than four years, assassinated one month after his second inauguration, when the Civil War was not quite over but its end was in clear sight, Robert E. Lee having surrendered the rebels’ largest and most successful army just a few days before.  Soon after his first inauguration the war began. 

What are the grounds for asserting and recognizing Lincoln’s heroism, having fought a war and not quite finished it?  Because he did fight the war and persevered and put in place what was needed for its inexorable conclusion in the victory of the United States.  I do not say victory of the North, but rather victory for the whole nation.  North, South, and all of the later states of the West and all of their people and their descendents were blessed by that victory.  So was the rest of the world, for that victory showed that a free people could triumph in self-government, having rejected the tyrannies of Europe and overcome the challenge of anarchy offered by the rebels of the old South.  The United States has done a lot of good for the world since then, all of which would have been impossible but for that victory.

Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, the Pennsylvania Democrat James Buchanan, opposed the rebellion of the South but refused to do anything about it.  He dithered and dallied as state after state fell into rebellion and even seized U.S. Army and Navy supplies and facilities while doing so.  Berns quotes how then Senator William H. Seward mimicked Buchanan’s near traitorous dereliction of duty with the impotent formula, “the states had no right to secede, unless they wanted to, and the president had the duty to enforce the law, unless someone opposed him.”

Lincoln came to office with a singular focus from which he refused to be distracted, to meet foursquare the national emergency, that is, to unite the nation and preserve that unity.  And he knew why.  He knew what the United States meant for freedom, for Americans, and for all people everywhere.  In his Gettysburg Address, Lincoln reminded his countrymen that the war was a test whether our free nation “or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, could long endure.”  The answer must not be allowed to be anything other than “Yes.”

As another mark of greatness, Lincoln knew that this was not about Lincoln.  As the war progressed, he fully expected to be defeated in the election of 1864 by the candidate of the Democrats, former Union General George B. McClellan, on a platform of ending the war by negotiating a truce with the South.  Lincoln pressed Generals Grant and Sherman to win the war before Lincoln’s likely successor could surrender. 

Moreover, Lincoln repeatedly pointed the nation away from himself and to who it was who fought the war.  At the new National Cemetery at Gettysburg, he reminded the nation that it was “the brave men, living and dead” whose national sacrifice had consecrated the war effort, far above the poor power of speeches by political leaders to add or detract from it.  Later, as the end of the war could be seen approaching and the end of his own life near if unseen—soon to be added to the many others who paid the price of preserving self-government—Abraham Lincoln again pointed the people to those who fronted the battle.  His second inaugural address could have been a moment of triumph and self congratulation against great odds.  Instead he asked the nation “to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan”.

Lincoln was great because he rose to the challenge of the times without shirking or excuse and sacrificed all that he had to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal, which principles were given force through the Constitution.  The force of those constitutional principles was correctly interpreted by the southern slave holders as leading to the inevitable end of slavery, confronting them with the acceptance of the end of their “peculiar institution” or rebellion.  They chose rebellion and anarchy, and Abraham Lincoln rallied a nation to refuse to walk away from that challenge to liberty for all.  

Today again we face a rather divided nation facing freedom-threatening dangers, not the least of which is impending national bankruptcy.  Fortunately, our nation is less divided than the press would have us believe (opinion poll after opinion poll shows large majorities who support the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution).  This time, however, we have a president who not only avoids the national fiscal crisis but feeds it.  To distract attention from that irresponsible policy he seeks every opportunity to encourage division and create new divisions. President Obama seeks to divide the nation by income, by race, by class, by religious belief.  He indicts whole industries and groups of people one by one as in effect enemies of the nation, whether it is the energy industry, pharmaceuticals, banking, health insurance, or Catholic leadership.  The solutions that he promises all boil down to “vote for me” in a media-supported national cult of personality.

Every cult of personality throughout history has ended badly for its people and their fearless leader.  The current one does not look to be changing that historical trend.  And yet, we still have the power to elect our leaders, and the year of national election has begun.  It may not be too late. 

As I ponder the birth, life, and service of Abraham Lincoln, I choose his example, because he rejected the cult of personality but instead gave his life for individual freedom and self-government.  I have hopes that the policies of dependence on government and the surrender of freedom will be rejected so that the American experiment will witness yet another “birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people” will continue to be a beacon and example around the world.

Of American Exceptionalism and Human Happiness

It is clear to most Americans that America is a unique and extraordinary place, not only unlike anywhere else in the world but in important ways better.  That is not a boast.  It is proven reality that needs to be recognized and understood.  It needs to be understood, because America’s uniquely important position in the world is neither accidental nor imperishable.  We need to know why it is, what made it, so that we can know what we need to do to preserve and promote it.

As one place to start, we have a federal system of government with the central organization founded on a powerful written constitution, inspired of God, focused on the worth of the individual, with a government answerable to the people, restricted in powers and authorities divided among three separate and co-equal and dependent branches.  With some lapses and unhappy seasons, the American people have largely and successfully steered the nation safely and well between the rocks and whirlpools of tyranny and anarchy, however loud and aggressive those forces have been.  The 1930s of the Roosevelt years were an unhappy season of tyranny, while the Civil War was the agonizing response to the challenge of anarchy.

To point out another field of evidence of American exceptionalism, we have a very exceptional military system that has yielded important and valuable results for Americans and for the world.  Unlike anywhere else in modern history or nearly all of ancient history, the American military has always been subject to civilian authority, ensuring that it has been servant to America and the ideals of the American people, never our master.  Historian Victor Davis Hanson described recent American military history in these words:

When we list the rogues’ gallery of thugs and killers that the United States has gone to war against in the last three generations—Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Kim il-Sung, Ho Chi Minh, the Stalinists, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden—while providing postwar aid rather than annexing conquered land, it reminds us that no other country has had either the capability or willingness to take on such burdens.  (Victor Davis Hanson, “Is America Periclean?”, The New Criterion, October 2011, p.12)

Our freedom from oppression by enemies or by our own government has allowed free enterprise and human opportunity to thrive here like nowhere else in the story of mankind.  Our system does not cause these, it merely allows and protects them.  People by nature seek growth, progress, advancement, development, innovation, achievement, and all that goes into creation.  It is part of our divine nature as children of the great Creator, the Father of growth and progress and happiness.  All of these things go into what humans find as happiness.

In my grade school years in south Florida we had a reader, Singing Wheels, that captured this American entrepreneurial spirit.  Recently I was able to find and buy a copy of that reader.  Written by Mabel O’Donnell, the book not only helped teach me to read, but it helped make the American spirit part of my way of seeing my country and the world, a source of inspiration to me as a young child that has not ceased to inspire into manhood.  Here is a brief excerpt, in which the young boy, Tom Hastings, and his father are talking on their hillside above their very new town only recently planted on the Illinois prairie. 

“Yes, Tom,” said Pa . . . , “I guess that’s what we are, Ma and you and I and the rest of us—pioneers.  We have opened up new country and have built new homes.  But the people who follow will turn these rich prairies into farm lands, and towns will spring up. . . We won’t be pioneers long.”

. . . There was a thoughtful, faraway look in Pa’s eyes, as if he were dreaming a dream which he hoped might come true.

“All that hillside is ours, Tom,” he said.  “Bought from the government for only twenty dollars.  Before another year comes round, the cabins will begin to climb the hill.  And there on the very top, there by the two big maples, will be our house, a frame house built from lumber sawed in our own mill. . . .”

Just as quickly as it had come, the thoughtful, faraway look left Pa’s eyes.  “Yes, that is the way it will be, son.  But don’t forget!  It takes hard work to make dreams come true, and there is work aplenty for all of us.”  (Mabel O’Donnell, Singing Wheels, p.82, 83)

For 21^st Century Americans there remains work aplenty for all of us, not the least of which is preserving our heritage of freedom, ever under attack from the ever present advocates of tyranny and anarchy.  The next generation and much of the world depend upon our success.