tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-51103982024-03-17T20:03:11.520-07:00THE rEPUBLICAN OBSERVERThis blog is devoted to studied investigation of news and opinion--with a special focus on the intersection of ideas and history in current events. A healthy mixture of history, philosophy, politics, economics, literature, and humor--THE rEPUBLICAN OBSERVER holds events up to the critical lights of reason and experience in the search for objective truth.Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.comBlogger273125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-27684216362533705112023-05-01T09:25:00.006-07:002023-05-01T09:25:52.174-07:00New blog<p>For writing specific updates and material, please see my new author blog at <a href="https://www.historymystery.blog">https://www.historymystery.blog</a></p><p>Hope to see you there soon!</p>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-25596674350407964832023-02-10T16:37:00.016-08:002023-02-28T21:45:56.584-08:00The School of Homer<p>Looking for a good vacation book? Dreaming about relaxing by the pool this summer already and want to dive into a mystery?</p><p>We humbly recommend <i>The School of Homer</i> by Alexander Marriott coming out February 23, 2023 from Vanguard Press and available where good books are sold!</p><p><a href="https://pegasuspublishers.com/books/alexander-marriott/the-school-of-homer">Pegasus Publishers book page</a></p><p><a href="https://a.co/d/iSx7heE">Amazon.com</a></p><p><a href="https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-school-of-homer-alexander-marriott/1143099737;jsessionid=4E766E9C3CCC891A67B2FA6852476741.prodny_store02-atgap12?ean=9781800164208">Barnes and Noble</a></p><p><a href="https://www.murderbooks.com/book/9781800164208">Murder by the Book</a></p><p><a href="https://www.brazosbookstore.com/book/9781800164208">Brazos Bookstore</a></p><p><a href="https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781800164208">Indie Bound</a></p><p><a href="https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-school-of-homer-alexander-marriott/19765523?ean=9781800164208">Bookshop.org</a></p><p><a href="https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=31432965927&cm_ven=sws&cm_cat=sws&cm_pla=sws&cm_ite=31432965927&clickid=QtvULPUOJxyNTrSVNMWnpWOhUkAUh-WweXMUQs0&cm_mmc=aff-_-ir-_-353196-_-77798&ref=imprad353196&afn_sr=impact&ref_=aff_ir_353196_77798">Abe Books</a></p><p><a href="https://www.worldcat.org/title/1371138836?oclcNum=1371138836">World Cat</a></p><p><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/122990019-the-school-of-homer">Goodreads</a></p><p><a href="https://www.biblio.com/book/school-homer-alexander-marriott/d/1522587814">Biblio.com</a></p><p><a href="https://amzn.eu/d/7fTr4Ys">Amazon.com UK</a></p><p><a href="https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-school-of-homer/alexander-marriott/9781800164208">Waterstones</a> (UK)</p><p><a href="https://www.foyles.co.uk/book/the-school-of-homer/alexander-marriott/9781800164208">Foyles (UK)</a></p><p><a href="https://www.brownsbfs.co.uk/Product/Marriott-Alexander/The-School-of-Homer/9781800164208">Brown's Books (UK)</a></p><p><a href="https://www.bookdepository.com/School-Homer-Alexander-Marriott/9781800164208?ref=grid-view&qid=1677446543562&sr=1-1">Book Depository</a></p><p><a href="https://www.saxo.com/dk/the-school-of-homer_bog_9781800164208">Saxo (DEN)</a></p><p><a href="https://www.readings.com.au/product/9781800164208/the-school-of-homer--alexander-marriott--2023--9781800164208#">Readings (AU)</a></p><p><a href="https://www.lehmanns.de/shop/literatur/62161744-9781800164208-the-school-of-homer">Lehmanns Media (GER)</a></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjohFRIYf7JG-mOFWYRIExwH2CgD32-GkttxitZe5bmnedQWl_novOad3Gkn6g2dQUnTkhe1fpHl6LCW6QLilNzYhraaH4h3FrEpUMhN-Df8q6e5w4CXlePYicuZZFHqwDupN3gzvcB3RMWvbaEca9KGoAFNW6dE-rQpH1sQgFAe_cG8wrZymg/s2733/School%20of%20Homer.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2733" data-original-width="2010" height="708" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjohFRIYf7JG-mOFWYRIExwH2CgD32-GkttxitZe5bmnedQWl_novOad3Gkn6g2dQUnTkhe1fpHl6LCW6QLilNzYhraaH4h3FrEpUMhN-Df8q6e5w4CXlePYicuZZFHqwDupN3gzvcB3RMWvbaEca9KGoAFNW6dE-rQpH1sQgFAe_cG8wrZymg/w521-h708/School%20of%20Homer.jpg" width="521" /></a></div><br /><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-38837213111270983722020-10-07T20:16:00.009-07:002022-08-31T09:16:54.640-07:00Lincoln wanted the voters to pick Taney's replacement? Not so fast, Senator HarrisTonight's Vice-Presidential Debate in Salt Lake City included a historical claim by Senator Kamala Harris of California:<br /><br />"In 1864, one of the, I think political heroes, certainly the President, I assume you also, Mr. Vice President, is Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was up for reelection and it was 27 days before the election. And a seat became open on the United States Supreme Court. Abraham Lincoln’s party was in charge, not only of the White House, but the Senate. <b>But Honest Abe said, “It’s not the right thing to do. The American people deserve to make the decision about who will be the next president of the United States. And then that person can select who will serve for a lifetime on the highest court of our land.”</b> And so Joe and I are very clear: the American people are voting right now and it should be their decision about who will serve on this most important body for a lifetime."<br /><br />The facts?<br /><br />On October 12, 1864 Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, author of the majority opinion in the infamous Dred Scott case and constant thorn in the side of Abraham Lincoln's administration of the Union war effort, died.<br /><br />Abraham Lincoln did not nominate Salmon P. Chase (his Secretary of the Treasury) to the post until December 6, 1864 (he was confirmed the same day!), a month after his victorious reelection over Democrat George B. McClellan.<br /><br />The circumstances seem to support Senator Harris's claim, superficially anyway. She alluded to Lincoln actually saying this was his rationale to someone in her "history lesson," but she did not attempt to quote honest Abe. It is well that she did not, as there was no such strategy at play here.<br /><br />Why the delay then?<br /><br />1a) There WAS an election--which Lincoln believed was essential to winning the Civil War. If he was defeated, the war was likely going to be lost--Union and emancipation would be in jeopardy.<br /><br />1b) Lincoln was quite worried about what a nomination would do to HIS party--which had many factions, who each had a favorite for the Court. <br /><br />2) Congress would not reconvene until December--so what was the rush? He would be President until March 1865 regardless of the election's outcome and the Senate would remain Republican, so he could afford to wait until the lame-duck session and keep the conservative and radical factions of his party focused on the election and the prize in Lincoln's hands. Doing so was dictated by political considerations (and, by extension--at least in Lincoln's mind--, strategic military considerations), but not as Senator Harris suggests.<br /><br />There is no primary source evidence that suggests Lincoln decided to wait with any intention of allowing a President McClellan to appoint the new Chief Justice. None. At all.<br /><br />But the most absurd thing about this fantasy is the idea that a lifelong partisan like Abraham Lincoln--and a man who had to suffer through four years of sanctimonious lecturing and posturing from Andrew Jackson's appointed Chief Justice (whom Lincoln had previously blamed, in part, for recklessly bringing about the events that led to the Civil War)--would ever allow a racist backsliding doughface Democrat like George B. McClellan to get within half an inch of filling that Supreme Court seat. Never. <br /><br />To suggest such a thing (Senator Harris), or to allow it to go without negating and mocking it (Vice-President Pence) simply tells us that the people trying to remain/become the 48th/49th Vice-President of the United States know shamefully little about our 16th and, quite possibly, greatest President.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />For more on this, please see Michael Burlingame, <i>Abraham Lincoln: A Life</i>, Volume II (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 731-736.Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-80478096195615026592020-09-23T17:38:00.003-07:002020-09-23T19:59:41.595-07:00<p>On August 13, 2020 - I compiled a chart (below) to compare the United States to six roughly contiguous European countries with a combined roughly equivalent population to the United States to see if COVID-19 was impacting apples and almost apples about the same regardless of the supposedly far different government responses. I relied on the Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Tracking Database for this--the Global Map feature.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PFtuGZen2bg/X2vo1iTZoKI/AAAAAAAAAlU/E_3510nKtKEP_PvU6IuG_xMvvrRTEfE0ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1339/Covid%2BChart.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="656" data-original-width="1339" height="263" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PFtuGZen2bg/X2vo1iTZoKI/AAAAAAAAAlU/E_3510nKtKEP_PvU6IuG_xMvvrRTEfE0ACLcBGAsYHQ/w536-h263/Covid%2BChart.jpg" width="536" /></a></div><br /><p>I have been updating the numbers regularly ever since. I have started to notice something quite peculiar, though, over the last five weeks. While the JHU data for Europe has reflected the recent spikes in cases in Europe reported in the press, the data on deaths has not only remained unrealistically and improbably stagnant, it is actually moving in the retrograde. Below are the updated figures as of 7:00 PM on September 23, 2020.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b63LnnJBV8E/X2vpWJB8OZI/AAAAAAAAAlc/F22QqOkre5s13pgPIBwrMjRWFFVqlKPOQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1339/Covid%2BChart%2B2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="656" data-original-width="1339" height="263" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-b63LnnJBV8E/X2vpWJB8OZI/AAAAAAAAAlc/F22QqOkre5s13pgPIBwrMjRWFFVqlKPOQCLcBGAsYHQ/w537-h263/Covid%2BChart%2B2.jpg" width="537" /></a></div><br /><p>These six European countries, despite discovering about 900k additional COVID-19 cases, have not only managed to avoid any mortality from them, but have actually managed to resurrect previously dead COVID-19 patients! This might make the novel corona virus not only one of the least fatal illnesses in the history of mankind, but curiously the guarantor of immortality if you happen to die from it in one of six European countries.</p><p>Given the rate of infections/deaths in the United States in early August, we would be justified in expecting 208,222 deaths at this point in September. As you can see, the rate of deaths per infection has come down slightly. But it is not way off the expectation from the August data point. By contrast, the 6 Euro countries' rate of infections/deaths would lead one to believe they would be around 253,106 deaths by now with their massive uptick in detected cases. Now, it is one thing to be below that frightening number due to younger people being more likely to test positive, getting better at detecting asymptomatic cases, getting better at treating cases, etc.--but to have the number of deaths actually go down??</p><p>Seriously though, the parallels to the suppression of accurate data during the so-called Spanish flu are hard to ignore here. I hope I am wrong.</p>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-27435872255238329832017-08-17T11:07:00.000-07:002017-08-17T11:07:53.079-07:00What President Trump should have (and easily could have) said on Saturday, August 12, 2017"We were scheduled to have a meeting today about the status of Veterans in our country, and the new bi-partisan bill supporting their ability to seek the best medical care available in our country, but events have superseded the schedule. Today we stand with the people of Charlottesville, Virginia who simply want to live in peace and make decisions for themselves without being harassed by reprehensible outsiders. The United States, w<span class="text_exposed_show">hich the most illustrious of my predecessors beautifully wrote in 1790, "gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance" and will never be the home or domain of vile collectivist ideologies that we have spilled blood and treasure to eradicate at home and abroad--be they racist, fascist, communist, or religious.</span><br />
<div class="text_exposed_show">
<br /><br />
"All who commit criminal acts will be punished to the fullest extent of the laws of the State of Virginia and the United States--I have already called Governor McAuliffe and the Attorney General and have been assured that they are doing everything legally permissible to bring anyone responsible for violating the laws of Virginia or the laws of the United States to justice. I would like to extend my personal thoughts and condolences to all those who have been injured or killed as the result of the disturbances this day.<br />
<br /><br />
"Our rights to disagree with one another, to speak freely, passionately, and openly--and assemble and protest and demonstrate--are sacred and inviolable. Just as sacred and inviolable are our rights to life and liberty and to not be physically assaulted by others. There is no tension or contradiction between legitimate rights, and there is no tension here. Saying vile things is unpopular but undeniably one's right to do. Doing vile things that violate the rights of others will never be permissible or tolerated while the Constitution of the United States still lives or while I am still the President of the United States.<br />
<br /><br />
"God bless the people of Charlottesville, those who have been hurt and injured, and those who have lost loved ones--and god bless the United States of America."<br />
<br /><br />
<em>A republican</em></div>
Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-86088345002000323882016-02-16T17:23:00.001-08:002016-02-16T20:22:18.704-08:00Some Historical Advice for Senate RepublicansWith the death of Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) comes the end of a colorful, controversial, and consequential three decades on the bench. Shockingly, in an election year with a divisive President and recently swept in Republican majority in the U.S. Senate, we find ourselves confronting something "unprecedented" in American history--a lame-duck President making a Supreme Court appointment with a Senate that may very well refuse to even act on the nomination. (Digression: unprecedented things in American history happen all the time, in every realm of society--they are not newsworthy simply for their novelty!) Quickly, the political chattersphere kicked into gear about who would be at fault for this allegedly never before seen example of political hackery and dysfunction.<br />
<br />
And yet, the history of the Republic contains at least two far more acrimonious examples of Congressional hatred for an unpopular and divisive President that resulted in delay and "hijinks" for Supreme Court appointments. And I would like to suggest that Senate Republicans follow one of these examples to avoid media bottlenecks over the next year that are likely to play right into the President's hands if he's clever enough (and he certainly is).<br />
<br />
As for the really nasty example that Republicans cannot follow even if they wanted to (their majorities aren't big enough), one need only look at the Presidency of Andrew Johnson. Aside from being impeached by the House of Representatives and nearly removed from office by the Senate, Johnson's tenure in office between 1865-1869 is also notable for the fact that the Congress of the United States deliberately went out of its way to reduce the size of the Supreme Court from nine to seven justices so that President Johnson could not appoint anyone. His one nominee, Henry Stanbery, met no action in the Senate because there was no longer a seat in existence for him to take. It should be noted, by the way, that the Senate has done this--take no action at all during a session on a nominee--nine times (there have been 160 nominations, so that is 5.6% of the time).<br />
<br />
One more historical delay before getting to the example Senate Republicans may wish to emulate. The last nominees actually made during an election year, Lyndon Johnson's 1968 appointments of Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and Homer Thornberry as Associate Justice were both withdrawn by the President in the face of congressional opposition (Democrats held a 60+ seat Senate majority throughout the session), which does not bode well for election year appointments. This is not due to any real constitutional, or even informal, arrangements, but simply the politics of election years when most of Congress is out of town and jittery about decisions that may have dire consequences in November. Reagan's appointment of Anthony Kennedy, it should be noted, occurred in 1987 and was wrapped up in the first two months of 1988. Reagan, unlike Johnson, was incredibly popular and his Vice-President was about to be swept into office later in the year--different political realities produce different outcomes, who knew!<br />
<br />
Finally, the precedent that Senate Republicans should follow. In 1841, after one of the most contested and exciting elections in American history, and barely a month into his Presidency, William Henry Harrison died. His Vice-President, John Tyler (Too), assumed the post with the full backing of the Whig Party that had just elected both men to the top of the Executive Branch. Sadly, for the Whigs, Tyler's Whiggism was of the anti-Andrew Jackson's use of executive power variety and not the Henry Clay "American System" variety. This meant that once the Whigs passed the legislation the voters just sent them to Congress to pass, their Whig President vetoed those laws. Very quickly, Tyler was read out of the Whig Party. An aristocratic Virginian anti-Jacksonian, he found no home with the Democrats either. He was a despised President with no party at all--a rarity in American politics, that only Andrew Johnson resembles in any way.<br />
<br />
Now, what does this mean for the Supreme Court? Well, during Tyler's rather miserable time in the Executive Mansion, two Associate Justices died--Smith Thompson (December 1843) and Henry Baldwin (April 1844). Tyler proceeded over the course of 1844--an election year--to submit five different nominees for the two vacancies in nine separate nominations. The Senate was narrowly controlled by the Whigs. First was John Spencer in January 1844, whom the Senate rejected three weeks after his nomination. Next was Reuben Walworth, whom the President withdrew in June after three and half months before the Senate. Then it was Edward King, who found himself postponed. John Spencer and Reuben Walworth were renominated and withdrawn again on the same day in June. In December, after a new President was elected (James K. Polk, Democrat), Tyler renominated King and Walworth, both of whom were withdrawn in February 1845 (Presidents were still sworn in on March 4 in those days) in the face of continued Senate opposition. Then, miraculously, Tyler submitted Samuel Nelson on February 4, 1845 who won unanimous consent from the Senate ten days later. Tyler's final nominee, John Read on February 7, 1845, met no action in the Senate and no vote. Baldwin's seat was not filled until Polk successfully nominated Robert Grier, who was confirmed in August 1846 (more than two years after Baldwin's death!) Why did Nelson make it through? He was an old jurist from New York with a good reputation who avoided the partisan strife of the Second Party System and whose only political service occurred during the good feeling Monroe administration. Which is to say, Nelson was someone everyone respected and could live with--no one held it against him that Tyler had nominated him.<br />
<br />
So what lesson do Senate Republicans draw from all this? Obviously, President Obama is not a man without a political party and he has considerably more resources and talent than John Tyler ever did. But, what 1844 proves is that an antagonistic Senate can easily keep Supreme Court seats open simply by considering and rejecting nominees from a President the majority doesn't much care for. There are several useful lessons here for Senate Republicans in 2016:<br />
<br />
1) Do not be afraid to reject nominees until you get one you like--the President is more desirous of living on through SCOTUS than you are!<br />
2) Do not be afraid to reject nominees more than once--when he keeps reappointing rejects, he will look as silly as he says you are every time you repeal Obamacare <br />
3) Do not stall on a nominee unless there is only a week or two left in Obama's term and/or the election is already over--the last thing you need is some sympathetic looking character constantly before the nation as they wait for consideration and are ignored (the American people can live with watching someone lose, but not with their being unable to have a shot--also, the media of 1844 hated John Tyler, whereas the media of 2016 is likely to disdain Senate Republicans)<br />
<br />
Of course, if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders wins the election in November (and Democrats retake the Senate), those Obama appointees might start to look good compared to what is about to come. In which case, hopefully there is a modern day Samuel Nelson waiting for action in the Senate!Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-13278201648377265582014-05-22T21:33:00.000-07:002014-05-22T21:33:32.285-07:00Getting Lincoln Right<em>The Objective Standard</em> has published a long, but important, article of mine on Lincoln's essential virtue and importance and the gross and shameful libel he has suffered at the hands of many so-called Libertarians and classical liberals in the last 20-30 years.<br />
<br />
Follow this link to read and/or purchase the article or entire issue in which it appears. <a href="http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2014-summer/getting-lincoln-right/">http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2014-summer/getting-lincoln-right/</a><br />
<br />
-- <em>A republican</em>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-74787718027984115022014-04-10T20:04:00.001-07:002014-04-10T20:06:22.948-07:00To Brandeis UniversityWhat has happened in the last several days concerning your sudden withdrawal of an honorary degree for a defender of the liberal arts, of the Enlightenment, of reason, of Western Civilization and the rights of man and woman--based on the hurt feelings of the votaries of mysticism and statism who never lift one finger to replace a Middle East dictator but with a Shariah toting madman--has been sad to watch. Ayaan Hirsi Ali represents all that is heroic and could be in the world--a woman of independent mind who held her family and culture and childhood religion to the lights of truth and justice. What you have done is embolden the forces of darkness and relativism. You have made it harder for people to speak out against violence and intimidation and you have done so in the heart of an institution that should care about freedom of speech and human dignity more than most.<br />
<br />
I am very disappointed and saddened.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. Alexander V. Marriott<br />
Assistant Professor of History<br />
Wiley CollegeAlexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-68872202685156698562013-08-07T18:01:00.001-07:002013-08-07T18:03:49.585-07:00Guest Submission: The Problem with Today's Digital Freedom Fighters<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, and an endless list of
digital vigilantes have come to dominate the news as of late. They profess to
be righting wrong by violating laws—laws which should not exist in a free and
just society. Manning released video of American helicopters killing Iraqi
civilians and Snowden revealed what many Americans have long feared – that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
government was capable of and is spying on the American people. These two men
have quickly become heroes to some and villains to others. Without question the
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
has entered into a precarious era of balancing the government need to protect
its citizens while maintaining secrets from foreign and domestic threats. The
problem is that security policy should be set through the democratic process
and not by high-minded vigilantes who would destroy the nation’s defense
capabilities while trying to allegedly protect individual liberty. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning violated oaths and
agreements made with the people of the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> by releasing secret
information. They state that not to do so would have been an abdication of a
greater responsibility they had to their fellow citizens and “humanity.” Both
believe they had witnessed something illicit and unjust and took it upon
themselves to correct this wrong by revealing documents considered classified,
as they were sensitive to the National Security of the American people. These
are the facts of the case for which there is no dispute. The question that
needs to be asked is this: does an individual American have a right to violate
laws meant to protect national security in the name of what they personally
consider to be, national security?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">While the stories of Snowden and Manning do indicate a
government whose obsession with maintaining its own secrecy while denying
privacy to others, there is a troubling pattern emerging--that of
technologically adept altruists who feel it is their duty to reveal what they
believe to be government and private malfeasance. Snowden states that he leaked
the documents because the “public needs to decide whether these programs are
right or wrong.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria;">
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Snowden is correct that the extent of the spying on American
citizens was “unknown,” but the suggestion that there was no oversight is
incorrect. Information on all of these programs was readily available to
inquisitive members of Congress, federal courts, and the Executive branch.
Furthermore, American citizens have had 12 years since the implementation of
the Patriot Act to elect individuals to Congress and the presidency to restrict
the government’s broad powers – knowing for the most part what they were.
Except for Senator Rand Paul from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Kentucky</st1:state></st1:place>,
most of the Post 9-11 officials have been lukewarm on civil liberties. The only
person who comes out of this scandal looking like a “liar,” who has hidden an
aspect of his policy beliefs from the American people is President Obama – but
what else is new? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">While President Obama campaigned on the promise of ending
surveillance programs, he has since decided it was valuable in whatever he
calls “the war on terror.” (I think it is now called: “Our On-Going Gentlemanly
Row on Terror”) The revelation that President Obama, like the president before
him, oversees a branch of government that has the ability to spy on every
single American should have come as a shock to no one. This should only come as
a lesson to Democrats that their president is just as lousy at guarding against
excesses as the Republicans. While it has been entertaining to see President
Obama’s hypocrisy brought to light and to watch Congressmen and Senators act
like Captain Renault of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Casablanca</st1:place></st1:city>,
(“I am shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on here!”) nothing has
or will come of this save embarrassing the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> and exposing an
expensive and formerly secret weapon. The result will be, just as every Liberty
loving American fears, a spying mechanism that is countered by our enemies (As
indicated by this recent story from Wired </span><a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/encryption-foiled-wiretaps/"><span style="color: blue;">magazine</span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria;">)
and whose only remaining target is the everyday citizen. All Edward Snowden has
done is to waste a considerable amount of taxpayer dollars and instigate the
NSA to make the program more robust and more secret at great expense. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">It is fair to say that Snowden’s actions have faint
similarities with those of whistle-blowers, who generally are protected from
prosecution for bringing illegal dealings to the proper authorities. This is
not what Snowden did. Instead of bringing what he believed to be a severe
violation of both the separation of powers and the rights of American citizens
to the attention of a Congressman, an attorney, or court’s officer, he released
American intelligence secrets to the foreign press. He also took more
information on intelligence operations with him to Hong Kong and then <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Russia</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
continuing to discharge more secret information on the way that was not
directly pertinent to the privacy of American citizens and pertained directly
to foreign surveillance methods used on the Europeans, Chinese, and Russians.
The first action may be considered an attempt on the part of a conscientious
citizen to roll back the national security state and protect individual
liberties, but the subsequent releases qualify as blatant espionage.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">The same goes for Bradley Manning who admittedly released
embarrassing State Department secret cables--many of which he did not even
bother to read--because he resented how the United States government treated
gays like himself. Manning’s petty act of revenge was both a violation of his sworn
oath as a <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>
service member and another blatant act of espionage against the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
That he stole and published random classified information to the “World” and
not to any particular country does not make his action any different than any
other spy working for a foreign nation.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Is Edward Snowden really concerned with the “liberties” of individuals
while aiding foreign governments like <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>
who steal from American companies and wage a cyber war against the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>?
Perhaps he believes the Russian government, that imprisons domestic protestors
and murders foreign dissidents, has secrets worth protecting? This all smacks
of a person with a misguided savior complex who believes that the path to
reform is embarrassing the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region> on the world stage and hoping for
revolution. The reasoning and arguments put forth by both of these men are
incredibly similar to those of the lone Anarchist who assassinated William
McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. Czolgosz believed that McKinley had violated American
principles in his war on the revolutionaries in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Philippines</st1:place></st1:country-region> and represented an
expansion of imperialism. He shot McKinley believing that murdering a “tyrant”
would encourage an Anarchist uprising. Czolgosz never bothered to contemplate
the idea that in a democratic country revolutions are not waged with bullets,
but with ballots. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">What Czolgosz, Manning and Snowden all seem to have
forgotten is that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region> relies on elections, courts, and
checks and balances to right the wayward ship. Every one of these individuals
could have voted, participated in, and advocated during one of many elections
if they wanted pro-privacy, anti-war candidates. This would have allowed them
to maintain the oaths and agreements they made to protect the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
and its secrets. Being part of the intelligence structure, they would have had
the knowledge base to know where the real pitfalls and incursions were and
pursued legislative and democratic methods to achieve the goal of resolving
them. Instead they aspired to be treated like martyrs of the hypocritical “Great
Satan,” by our enemies, all the while fixing nothing.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">While I believe that Snowden and Manning are criminals who unapologetically
violated their oaths - and Manning’s court martial happens to agree with me –
that does not mean that I discount the need for government whistleblower
reform. President Obama has been waging a war on leakers, so long as said leaks
do not make him look good like those that revealed foiled Al’Queada plots in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Yemen</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
His ability to wield the bureaucratic and access nightmare that is classified
materials to hide his own failings (See: Benghazi) and to use laws associated with
classified materials to punish legitimate criticisms of his policy failings
presents a real threat to the separation of powers, national security, and the
liberties of individual Americans. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Do I want government spying on American citizens to end? Of
course I do. The excesses of the Patriot Act were apparent to most Americans
the day someone finally sat down to read it. What is the value of knowing what
books people are reading? After 9-11 that only book that seemed pertinent to
that particular attack was the Qur’Ran. The only person who might benefit from
producing a report of books American citizens are buying is the guy who sells
the government its paper. If there is a source of corruption, I always assume
it is that guy.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Should we being having this discussion? Definitely. Should Edward
Snowden get a pass because the public agrees with his outrage? Of course not.
We are a nation of laws. If you disagree with said laws you still have some
options denied to most of the rest of humanity: work to change them, emigrate,
or revolt. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Should there be legislation to protect government whistleblowers
that reveal troubling Top Secret information to Congressmen and Senators so
they can make informed decisions? Yes. But should Snowden and Manning be
treated like heroes for releasing sensitive information for the “sake of the
world?” No. Should they be prosecuted for violating the trust given to them by
the American people? Yes. Will we continue to see more people like Snowden and
Manning who feel alienated by a political system where elections steer policy
and not vigilantism? Definitely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"></span></o:p> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">The current battle for electronic privacy is an important
fight, if not the most important, being waged by the State and those who seek
to limit its power. The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United
States</st1:place></st1:country-region> government, has long made a habit of
listening in on conversations, telegraphs, phone calls, and Internet messages
of its citizens. The extent to which this should be permitted in a republic
that guarantees a reasonable right to privacy is a delicate balance between
elected officials, law enforcement, voters, and the courts. It is not an area
that should be settled by megalomaniacal altruists who play God with computer
code and think it entitles them to play God with <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s national security and
justice systems. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
</div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<em>-- Daniel P. Roberts</em><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria;">
Barbara Starr, Man Behind NSA Leaks says he did it to safe guard privacy,
liberty, last modified June 23, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/politics/edward-snowden-profile</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria;">
Ali Mohsin, Bradley Manning justifies his actions by a desire to spark a
debate, February 28, 2013, http://www.dailypressdot.com/bradley-manning-justifies-his-actions-by-the-desire-to-spark-a-debate/758357/.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-9698551525773749162013-03-25T18:35:00.004-07:002013-03-27T22:49:03.159-07:00Stay Cool with Coolidge? The Real Legacy of "Silent Cal"<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 200%;">A Review of Amity
Shlaes’ <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Coolidge</i> (<st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state>: HarperCollins, 2013)<o:p></o:p></span></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Presidential biography season is well under way. The last
several years have seen several new studies of George Washington, James Madison,
Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson. These and
other Presidents have long been the recipients of copious attentions from
biographers, but not all Presidents are so fortunate. Some, like <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chester</st1:place></st1:city> A. Arthur and
William Henry Harrison, scarcely ever receive any book-long treatment at all.
Most Presidents see a new biography every decade or so. And so, one of this
year’s most talked about and, quite possibly, best-selling biographies, is now
before us—Amity Shlaes’ <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Coolidge</i>, a
prequel/follow-up to her blockbuster reconsideration of the Great Depression
and New Deal, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Forgotten Man </i>(2008).<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Whenever any writer—historian or not—decides to write a long
examination of the life of a man as famous as Calvin Coolidge (1872-1933), the
thirtieth President of the United States, and a man about whom numerous studies
and biographies have already been written—including Robert Sobel’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Coolidge: An American Enigma</i> (1998),
Robert H. Ferrell’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Presidency of
Calvin Coolidge</i> (1998), and David Greenberg’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Calvin Coolidge</i> (2006)—they must justify or explain what new needs
to be said. Why now? Why Coolidge? Coolidge, of course, wrote his own
discursive account of his life and work while leaving the Presidency—<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge</i>
(1929)—and his life and Presidency became the subjects of writers and
biographers of all stripes as soon as his main achievements, economy in
government and the booming economy, were blown to bits by his immediate successors.
One such account appeared in 1938, from the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Kansas</st1:state></st1:place> newspaperman William Allen White, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Puritan in Babylon: The Story of Calvin
Coolidge</i>. According to White, studying Coolidge was the fodder of a
historical sleuth: “My hypothesis is this: That in the strange, turbulent years
that brought an era to a close a man lived in the White House and led the
American people who was a perfect throwback to the more primitive days of the
Republic, a survival of a spiritual race that has almost passed from the earth.
The reaction of this obviously limited but honest, shrewd, sentimental,
resolute American primitive to those gorgeous and sophisticated times—his White
House years—furnished material for a study of American life as reflected in
American business and American politics, which I hope may be worth the perusal
of readers who would understand their country in one fine, far day of its pomp
and glory.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a> Coolidge
has remained an interesting part of American culture—playing the same role for
most Americans’ conception of the 1920s that Eisenhower plays for the 1950s—that
of the paternal quiet old man, trusted by most, liked by more, but not
extremely well known.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Coolidge, despite the perception of being remembered by few,
has never been long out of the spotlight. The New Dealers came to power—and
stayed in power—largely on a strident critique of the 1920s and early 1930s—the
Harding, Coolidge, and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Hoover</st1:place></st1:city>
years. The synthetic works of John Kenneth Galbraith are nothing if not a
formalized and intellectual trashing of notions of “throwbacks” like Coolidge.
An affluent society like the one Coolidge presided over had to be willing to
“do more” not less, said the New Dealers. When Ronald Reagan seemingly dusted
Coolidge off the floor of forgotten history, he was actually scooping him from
a partially covered grave of remembered and much battered villains.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
According to Amity Shlaes (syndicated columnist for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bloomberg View</i> and winner of the Hayek
and Bastiat Prizes for journalism—as well as a trustee of the Calvin Coolidge
Memorial Foundation), a new biography of the Vermont born and raised Amherst
graduate who became Governor of Massachusetts, national prominence from ending
the first major attempt of an urban police force to strike, and then the
Vice-Presidency and Presidency is warranted because of what we might learn of
the possibilities for our own problems.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">It is hard for modern students of economics to know
what to make of a government that treated economic weakness by raising interest
rates 300 basis points, cutting tax rates, and halving the federal government,
so much at odds is that prescription with the antidotes to recession our own
experts tend to recommend. It is harder still for modern economists to concede
that that recipe, the policy recipe for the early 1920s advocated by Coolidge
and Harding, yielded growth on a scale to which we can aspire today.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Certainly, on the face of it, a man who directed—or helped
direct—the reduction of the national debt from $28 billion to $17.65 billion (a
37% decrease that if replicated at this exact moment would bring the national
debt of the United States from $16.74 trillion to $10.55 trillion) seems to
have answers for today’s problems.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a> But
the curious thing about Shlaes’ biography of “Silent Cal” is that there are
virtually no answers. This is, I believe, not her fault, but rather is related
to issues which she only peripherally examines but fundamental to explaining
the very real oddity that White identified—that the same nation which elected
Harding and Coolidge also elected Franklin Roosevelt to office more times than
his three predecessors put together.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Part of the problem arises from a methodological issue
prevalent among many modern biographers—David McCullough, Ron Chernow, and a
great many other of the most able practitioners—a blurred chronological focus
on nearly everything. Biographers, unless they purposely set out to write an
intellectual biography or a “life and times” of their subjects, often try to
give a Herodotean survey of all the facets of the men and women they examine.
This means that often as much attention is paid to private personal incidents
and relationships as are given to large public episodes and events. Only a
brave soul will make the difficult editorial decisions in a one volume
biography to pass over or minimize the truly less important events and
incidents of a life and withstand the waves of criticism that will arrive from
editors and reviewers. Also lost are the grand meta-historical issues related
to the biography of a man—such as his philosophy and political thought, that require
chronology to be sacrificed for the sake of thematic continuity and examination.
These issues are not unique to Shlaes’ account of Calvin Coolidge by any means,
but they are certainly not solved and make the answers she hopes her account
can provide elusive, if not entirely absent.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
A couple of examples from Coolidge’s life and times will
illustrate why a purely chronological account of his life is insufficient for
getting at anything resembling useful answers in today’s political climate—and
also leaves any uninformed reader with surprisingly little understanding of
what was going on in the 1920s (or 1910s and 1930s). Take just the language of
political description: conservative, liberal, Progressive, Republican,
Democrat, etc. The Republican Party, and Coolidge himself, were the primary
incubators of late nineteenth-century Progressivism particularly under such
party standard bearers as <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chester</st1:place></st1:city>
A. Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, James G. Blaine, Thomas Reed, and Theodore
Roosevelt. It was not until Southern populism and Midwestern agrarianism under
the likes of William Jennings Bryan offered the Democratic Party an avenue to
outflank the GOP for the Progressive vote between 1896 and 1912. We see this in
Shlaes’ writing, for instance in a passage on Coolidge’s self-conscious
marshaling of his achievements as Governor of Massachusetts: “Many Republicans
believed that for a politician to survive he must remain progressive. ... He
asked his assistant, Henry Long, to compile a list of progressive legislation he
had signed. The laws ranged from a plan regulating weekly pay for injured
employees in case of partial incapacity to minimum wages for scrubwomen.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a>
How do we square this with later comments such as: “Then came another thought
that was uniquely Coolidge: “It is much more important to kill bad bills than
to pass good ones.” He was, like McCall, beginning to see the extent of the
damage that bad legislation could do;” or, “But when it came to the substance,
Coolidge was ambivalent; he still considered himself a progressive. That spring
he voted for women’s suffrage, the state income tax, a minimum wage for female
workers, and salary increases for teachers, thereby preempting territory before
Democrats or other new candidates might get to it;” or, “Price controls didn’t
work now, either. In addition to respect for the reign of law, the law of
markets. “Isn’t it a strange thing,” he asked Barton, “that in every period of
social unrest men have the notion that they can pass a law and suspend the
operations of economic law?””<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a>
The most Shlaes can muster for us as far as relates to Coolidge himself is an
evolving attitude on economic regulation that was a cornerstone of early
twentieth century Progressivism—and its modern analogue.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This evolution, we are told, is generally away from the
regulatory state of Franklin Roosevelt and even Herbert Hoover, but then we
have to deal with serious problems in that interpretation. One, not covered (or
only very quickly) by Shlaes, is President Coolidge’s ease with regulating new
technologies—airplanes, cars, and radio. Another is President Coolidge’s firm
embrace of protectionism. This was not from lack of inquiry about the results
of tariffs—in fact Shlaes keeps some of the leading thinkers of the period
perpetually in the background of her narrative, as shown in this passage:
“Coolidge rated (William Graham) Sumner “on the whole sound.” But Coolidge was
not ready to sign on to Sumner’s philosophy: “I do not think that human
existence is quite so much on the basis of dollars and cents as he puts it. ...
He nowhere enunciates the principle of service.””<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></span></span></span></a>
Shlaes, while offering an explanation for Coolidge’s adherence to protectionism
rooted in his <st1:place w:st="on">New England</st1:place> experience, is
unsympathetic to his conclusions. But how did Coolidge and Republicans square
protectionism—which Shlaes correctly points out hurt the farmers of the Midwest
and drove increasing numbers of them into the arms of free-trading
Democrats—with such notions of government as: “The most important thing now was
to free the individual, for, as Coolidge said, “It is our theory that the
people own the government, not that the government should own the people.””<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a>
The people own the government to partition trade advantages among regions of
the country? </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
How about Coolidge’s signing of one of the worst legislative
landmarks of the 1920s, the Immigration Act of 1924 (that excluded
“undesirable” Japanese and Chinese immigrants entirely from legally moving into
the republic and essentially ended most Eastern and Southern European immigration):
“Coolidge was willing to go along with restrictionists. “I am convinced that
our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be
admitted,” he wrote. But he was not hostile to immigrants already in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
And he was especially concerned at the widely supported Japanese exclusion
provision that many congressmen hope to make law.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a>
Her take on this is that Coolidge was log-rolling in order to get his
Republican majorities in House and Senate to go along with tax cuts and
economizing in government—but lost is an explanation for why a disconnect
existed between Coolidge and his majorities on that point in the first place.
Why did Coolidge allegedly have to trade his signature on bills he might
otherwise have vetoed—this is Shlaes’ implication, but only for the diplomatic
danger of angering the Japanese, which is exactly what occurred—in order to
secure passage of tax cuts and economizing in the wake of a war prosecuted and
managed by Democrats? No clear or obvious answer emerges.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
We might be further confused from the seeming bifurcation of
the Republican Party in spite of the argument proffered from Shlaes of
Coolidge’s immense popularity and of his policies. For instance, while Hoover
swept into the Presidency promising to continue the Coolidge policies, it is
clear from Shlaes’ recounting that many Republicans—including Hoover—had major
disagreements with Coolidge, as we can see from this passage that makes obvious
that Franklin Roosevelt’s activities were neither unpredictable nor even unique
to his partisan identity: “Many Republicans, including [William] Borah, were
plotting to move the party to the left; Borah had allowed he might back George
Norris, who sought federal ownership of hydropower.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[10]</span></span></span></span></a> <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Hoover</st1:place></st1:city>, whom Shlaes
argues Coolidge did not like—despite keeping him in his Cabinet and deploying
him to advantage during natural disasters—was not adverse to these “elastic”
notions of government power and intervention. That Robert La Follette
(1855-1925) bolted the Republican Party in 1924 to run as the Progressive
Party’s candidate against Coolidge did not necessitate a divorce between the
GOP and Progressivism—which is why La Follette completely failed to replicate
the split Theodore Roosevelt caused in the election of 1912. </div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
What is truly interesting about Coolidge and the period of
American politics that he inhabited and represented, the roaring twenties and
Prohibition—it is nearly unaccountable how little discussion there is in this
biography about Prohibition, the enforcement of which fell mostly heavily on
Calvin Coolidge and that greatly expanded the pernicious tentacles of Federal
power to every corner of the nation through the enforcement carried out by
Federal agents largely under the authority of J. Edgar Hoover and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation—was its transitional nature. The great “flip” in the
roles of the political parties was occurring and maturing during this very
period—though the truly interesting part of the tale was on the Democratic side
and we get very little of that here. Coolidge, while a “throwback” in some
regards, was mostly a “throwback” to what the Democratic Party used to be under
the auspices of Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and Grover Cleveland—and even
there only in part. Coolidge’s record of cutting the Federal Budget, the debt,
and the size of the Government workforce (there is a difference between that
and restraining its power and scope, which Coolidge achieved very little
towards) was and is admirable, but as Shlaes makes clear—as she must—this was
ephemeral. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Hoover</st1:city></st1:place>
blasted these achievements into bits immediately and Franklin Roosevelt so
obliterated any trace of them that observers had to wonder how the same country
had elected Coolidge and Roosevelt only eight years apart.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
So what are the answers? How do we now take anything of
value from the story of Calvin Coolidge and cutting the budget and debt—other
than simply knowing it was once done? What did Coolidge cut and why? What did
he see as government’s proper role and why? How did he square either of those
answers with his own actions in office which sometimes tended toward greater
liberalism and sometimes towards the greater statism on the horizon? Did he
renounce the Progressive wing of his party or any of its standard-bearers? How
did he square Theodore Roosevelt’s notions of government activism with his own?
Or is the better question: Did he have to do so? The greatest reason why we
cannot cut our humongous budget deficit (one of the book’s funnier passages
relates to Coolidge’s angry frustration with the advent of a $37 million
deficit at the end of his term) let alone reduce our mind-boggling national
debt, relates to the widespread acceptance of a notion of government
interventionism that Coolidge did, indeed, have issues with.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a>
But does his story offer us an antidote to that acceptance—based in notions of
“service” that Coolidge may have agreed with in large part? Did he ever
articulate a full-throated case against economic interventionism? Or a defense
of limited government—why it was necessary and what it was meant to do? So far
as anyone can tell from Shlaes’ book, the answer is no—and that is the correct
answer. Why, then, write a straight biography of such a person if the goal is
offer some path to future prosperity and economic growth? The heavy lifting of
the changes necessary to preserve liberty and fiscal sanity has to be done with
ammunition a bit more potent than simply pointing to a brief transitional
period in American political history—after a war and major military build-up
(the disconcerting thing here is that Shlaes could have written a similar
account of Harry Truman’s Presidency in more ways than just that point)—where
the budget and national debt were reduced. Coolidge running for President today
would lose because he would react in horror to the post-World War II welfare
state consensus, the precise reason why Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, and Thomas
Dewey all lost the elections of 1936, 1940, 1944, and 1948. Only when General
Eisenhower moved the party progressively and firmly into the wake of Franklin
Roosevelt’s “bold experimentation” did the Republican Party re-emerge. Even the
great Coolidge booster, Reagan, was a <st1:place w:st="on">Roosevelt</st1:place>
man in the 1930s.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Americans are all New Dealers now. Coolidge’s encomium to <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Vermont</st1:place></st1:state> recounted in the
book during his visit to the State of his birth after a natural disaster is
hardly understandable now: “I love <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Vermont</st1:place></st1:state>
because of her hills and valleys, her scenery and invigorating climate, but
most of all I love her because of her indomitable people. They are a race of
pioneers who almost impoverished themselves for a love of others. If ever the
spirit of liberty should vanish from the rest of the Union, it could be
restored by the generous store held by the people in this brave little state of
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Vermont</st1:state></st1:place>.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[12]</span></span></span></span></a>
If we are waiting for liberty’s defense to emanate from the state of Bernie
Sanders, Pat Leahy, and Howard Dean we are in serious trouble. Coolidge, of
course, did not live to see or offer an alternative to the New Deal—but he saw
it coming and offered nothing to stop it except Herbert Hoover, whose rise
could not have happened without Coolidge’s patronage and withdrawal from
office.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
That Coolidge was an interesting figure with laudable ideas,
goals, and achievements is undeniable—and Shlaes’ biography reminds us all of
that and informs those new to him of it—but that has always been the case while
never promoting any of his ideas in contemporary policy debates. While the
American people continue to demand their cake after the eating, on the dime of
whatever despised minority getting the short-end of the stick, the good that
Coolidge did will continue not to live after him. That disposition and attitude
has to be countered by an antipode that did not exist in Coolidge’s day and one
that Coolidge may very well have disagreed with—a bold defense of liberty,
economic and personal. A defense of liberty and capitalism as the only moral
system in the world—a system based on defending individual rights from the
initiation of force as the reason, the only reason, for government to exist.
Only as such ideas begin winning the debate for the consciences of the American
people, can the role of government contract and, with it, our never-ending
budget deficits and unfathomable sea of national debt.</div>
<br />
<br />
<em>-- A republican</em><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Amity
Shlaes, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Forgotten Man: A New History
of the Great Depression</i> (<st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state>: Harper
Perennial, 2008); Amity Shlaes, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Coolidge</i>
(<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">New York</st1:state></st1:place>:
HarperCollins, 2013).</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> William
Allen White, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Puritan in Babylon: The
Story of Calvin Coolidge</i> (The Macmillan Company, 1938; Easton Press
reprint, 1986), v-vi.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Shlaes, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Coolidge</i>, 12.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
349, 419.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
177.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
110, 114, 191.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
192.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
318.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
268.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[10]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
395-396.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
428.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[12]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
430.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-519249147206708952013-02-28T20:11:00.003-08:002013-02-28T20:11:41.065-08:00Nicholson Baker is Blowing “Human Smoke” Up Your ......
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;"><strong>A Review of Nicholson Baker’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II,
the End of Civilization</i> (<st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state>:
Simon & Schuster, 2008)</strong></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">If there is one common thread
throughout Nicholson Baker’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Human Smoke:
The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization</i>, it is that
Nicholson Baker is a pacifist. Baker is so pacifistic that he refuses to
clearly state any thesis whatsoever, leaving the reader to wind their way
through the chaotic and contradictory incidents he uses to make his point:
simply, that “hurting people is bad.” Baker, and those who find <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Human Smoke</i> moving or, in the case of
atheist magician Penn Jillette, “devastating,” argue that this is a dramatic
style, a way to engage the reader and provoke debate. I would argue that it
seems to be a charlatan’s empty ploy to present their narrative as authentic,
when it is actually a shallow and dishonest representation of complicated human
events. In fact, the only stated argument found anywhere in the entire book is
in the synopsis on the back, which claims <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Human
Smoke</i> is “a moving indictment of the treasured myths that have romanticized
much of the 1930s and ‘40s.” Alas, Baker never provides us with the myths he is
seeking to refute; only the juxtaposition of events he thinks demonstrates
moral equivalency between Axis and Atlantic Allies. By doing so he is dishonest
by omission and anyone with even a basic understanding of WWII history cannot
help but wonder whether Nicholson Baker did so out of staggering ignorance or
for the insidious purpose of denigrating those who fought to save Western
Civilization.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Because <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Human Smoke</i> has no clear written arguments - only insinuated ones -
I am forced to try and explain what Baker is trying to say, rather than appeal
to his own well stated aims. The primary argument of the book seems to be that
pacifism is moral perfection. Those who refused to commit themselves to the
folly of collective security agreements, arms races, and building planes, such
as the pacifist outliers of pre-WWII, are not the cowering, naïve, and
anti-Semitic masses that Baker believes historians have accused them of being.
Rather, they are the Cassandra’s who fought against a tide of capitalism,
governmental folly, and suicidal national pride. To prove this, Baker quixotically
appeals to organizations like the Nye Committee or individual examples like
Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Ghandi, who just so happen to have been
naïve anti-Semites. Baker escapes this uncomfortable reality, in his own
estimation, by pointing out that “warmongers” like Winston Churchill and
Franklin Delano Roosevelt also espoused their own brand of patrician
anti-Semitism. According to Baker, Churchill and Roosevelt followed the same
logic as the pacifists. The agreed, he contends, that <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region> was
only trying to do something about its “Jew problem,” because there actually
were too many Jews. What Baker fails to appreciate is that the moral difference
between the two groups became apparent when Hitler began killing people. The
“warmongers,” Churchill and Roosevelt were prepared to do something about it,
while Ghandi suggested that the Jews should publicly sacrifice themselves to
the fire. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Baker is correct to show that not
all pacifists went around claiming that Jewish banking interests, or Jewish
communists depending on which party line they towed, were the source of
international tension. Some, like the members of the Peace Pledge Union, were
so committed to peace they even signed up for a membership card—a membership
card being the internationally recognized declaration that I care about this
enough to fill it out and buy a stamp. But alas, Baker’s continued emphasis on showing
that the sale of armaments between nations was tantamount to treason and that
global capitalistic enterprise played a role in the making of the war itself
smacks of the same inane logic held by the likes of those on the Nye Committee
and Lindbergh. I hate to burst Baker’s bubble, (no, wait, I don’t), but the
Soviet Union, which he glaringly leaves out of the first 200 pages of the book
save for a reference to starvation in the Ukraine, was selling armaments to
Germany as well. They also invaded <st1:country-region w:st="on">Poland</st1:country-region>,
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Finland</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Lithuania</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Estonia</st1:country-region>,
and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Latvia</st1:place></st1:country-region>,
all of their own volition, without the encouragement of bankers or airplane
manufacturers. At no point does Baker even attempt to make a critical appraisal
of the <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place> and its murderous campaign
of purges. It is only spoken of as a looming menace that leads Winston
Churchill into saying positive things about Benito Mussolini.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Ironically, none of this compares to
Baker’s maniacal dishonesty and apologist nonsense as it pertains to his claims
that the blame for the war lay with the Allies and Axis equally, and that
neither held any moral high ground. Serious historians have argued that had the
Allies been more committed to their collective security agreements, or if the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
had used more diplomatic savvy, war might have been averted. Baker, on the
other hand, has decided that the keys to avoiding war were the very same
arguments made by fascist apologists at the time and since. For the Germans it
was the mystical attraction of Hitler. The German people, degraded by a savage
blockade of Winston Churchill’s design, driven to desperation by punitive
inflation, and seeking to restore a sense of pride in themselves, decided to
embrace Nazism and, with it, the crazed plans of Adolf Hitler. Left out and
forgotten is that millions and millions of German citizens joined the Nazi
party of their own volition, chose repeatedly to do nothing about its excesses,
that millions of others participated in the orgy of violence on both the
Western and Eastern Fronts, and benefitted from racial subjugation and murder
of their fellows. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">The shear stupidity of moral
equivocation between <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>
and the Allies is only superseded by Baker’s malicious fraud as it pertains to
the origins of the war in the Pacific. On this front, Baker repeatedly
insinuates that the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>,
by selling arms to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>
and displaying disrespect for the Japanese natural desire for security in their
own sphere, invited Japanese aggression. While fanatical racists within the
Japanese government have used this argument—claiming that the Naval Treaty between
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Britain</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region>, and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region>
was a national insult—any secondary reading into the topic, outside of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region>, would
reveal that this was merely propaganda meant to boil the blood of the fanatical
Japanese officer corps. Were Baker not so obsessed with demonizing Winston
Churchill for the naval blockade of Germany he might have mentioned that the
Japanese had a history of attacking other countries in an effort to solve
issues associated with their defective command economy and internal political
problems. He might have mentioned the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 or perhaps the
Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, or their attack on the <st1:place w:st="on">Soviet Union</st1:place> in 1939. Perhaps having some knowledge of
these events might have offered perspective on the perceived need to prepare
for further Japanese aggression by the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>. But this would
require the sensible application of context, or the desire to mention it. As
for selling planes to <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>
up until the mid-1930s, the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region>
had been selling steel and oil to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Japan</st1:place></st1:country-region> at the very time they were
massacring Chinese civilians. The Imperial Government only ever took issue when
the materials stopped flowing, which did not occur until the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
government had had enough of supplying rampaging Japanese armies.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">There is one positive aspect to the
book, and that is Nicholson Baker’s frequent references to the tragedy of
Jewish refugees as they struggled to extricate themselves from the clutches of
the Nazis. He is right to portray the leaders of the Western world as craven
and stupid for blocking the flight of people in mortal jeopardy. But, again,
Baker contradicts himself by placing Ghandi and the pacifists as exemplars, all
of whom argued that Herr Hitler could be reasoned with long after he had begun
imprisoning and murdering his political and social enemies. Worse still is
Baker’s suggestion that the Madagascar Plan was a reasonable thing the Germans
considered for the nearly 4 Million Jews they held in the New Reich (Western Poland,
<st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bohemia</st1:place></st1:state>, and
Moravia). There are no Holocaust historians who assert this was ever a
realistic plan under any circumstance. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Baker’s primary, most inane, and
asinine argument in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Human Smoke</i> is
the notion that pacifism in the face of murderous Fascism, or Communism (there
are very few differences), is something to be applauded. There is an apt poem
that starts, “They first came for the Jews,” and ends with “then they came for
me.” In the case of the Second World War, it is worth noting that while FDR might
have let Hitler come for the Jews, he didn’t wait till the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Fuhrer</i> came around for the American people to start helping bomb
Hitler’s sick regime out of existence, and for that he deserves at least some
credit. But beyond Churchill and Roosevelt, Baker fails to realize that while
Ghandi might laud the idea of men walking unarmed into bullets and gas
chambers, he did so in the relative safety of waging a campaign for national
rights against Churchill’s British Empire that would never even attempt
exterminating <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s
people. The Jews of Europe were struggling for their very lives against an
enemy that sought to annihilate them. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">In the end there is little that can
be done to convince someone like Baker that it is better to kill than be
subjugated, murdered, or suffer the murder of your loved ones and friends. All
I can do is present an alternative stories to Baker’s bleak morally bankrupt
universe. Although I find his style of hundreds of short snippets to be
monotonous and boring, I think I can improve upon them and refute Baker with
the right set of examples:</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Marion
Pritchard, a Dutch social work student who had been imprisoned and tortured by
the Nazis joined the Dutch Resistance. She spent several years of her life
rescuing Jewish children from almost certain murder at the hands of the Nazis.
While hiding Jewish children, a Dutch Nazi led the Germans to their hiding
spot. During the first inspection the children weren’t found, but the Dutch
Nazi returned later to discover the children. Marion Pritchard shot the man
dead to protect the young souls that relied on her. It was 1942.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>*</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Private
Angelo Antonelli was born a peasant and found himself drafted into the Italian
Army in WWI. He served in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Libya</st1:country-region>,
<st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Italy</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s
colonial possession. His service was a miserable experience, where he was
subjected to poor pay, draconian discipline, and insulting classism. Rather
than join the popular Socialist and Fascist movements that plagued <st1:country-region w:st="on">Italy</st1:country-region> in the wake of the First World War, Angelo
moved to the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>
to make a home for his wife, and new born son. In 1924 he suffered the loss of
his entire life savings, then deposited in the Dresdener Bank. In the wake of a
personal catastrophe that drove many middle class Germans to Nazism, Angelo
continued to work tirelessly to bring his family to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. When the Great Depression
hit, he worked harder, all the while emphasizing the promise of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>, its
culture of freedom, naming his second son Americo in 1930. He never made
excuses and never demanded that his fellow men be subject to the whims of the
state.</span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>*<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>*</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">In
1945, Paul Tibbets flew the B-29 bomber <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Enola
Gay</i> for the express purpose of dropping the single largest explosive
ordnance yet known to man, the Atomic bomb. After millions of man-hours of
work, years of research, infrastructure construction, and the creation of new
and unheard of technological advances, the scientists in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Los Alamos</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">New Mexico</st1:state></st1:place>,
discovered how to split the atom, releasing unheard of amounts of heat, light, and
energy upon the surface of the Earth. Tibbets was widely recognized as a hero
already, having flown 25 missions during the early stages of WWII over <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Germany</st1:place></st1:country-region>. There
he saw hundreds of his fellow American bomber crewmen and fighter pilots killed
trying to disrupt the sophisticated industrial machine being used by the Nazi
empire to murder its neighbors. </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">On
August 6, 1945, Tibbets found himself on a similar mission, but free of much of
the danger he and his fellow bomber crewmen faced early in the war. His B-29
flew higher and faster than anything the Japanese employed. It was the
uncontested master of the skies in the Pacific and had been for much of 1945.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Japanese Army still controlled enormous
swaths of land, still held millions of slave laborers in a state of starvation,
and after weeks of unrelenting bombing by the B-29, still refused to surrender.
That morning Paul Tibbets and the crew of the Enola Gay dropped a bomb that
produced heat found only on the surface of the Sun on the people of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Hiroshima</st1:city>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Japan</st1:country-region></st1:place>.
He did so not out of cruelty, nor some desire to benefit from the production of
arms. Paul Tibbets dropped the bomb for the same reason he dropped every other
bomb he had ever been ordered to, in the hope of bringing swift completion to a
conflict that killed over 100 million people, a conflict started by gangs of
murderers and thieves for the purpose of enslaving humanity.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Cambria;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Cambria;">Every day,
a pacifist, believing that it is morally right to accept slavery, mass murder,
and tyranny, calls Paul Tibbets a psychopath, a cog in a conspiracy of morally
ambiguous violence, and a mass murderer. I would only tell that person that
when they find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun, their family and
friends subject to the whims of madmen, they should consider that were there
more men like Paul Tibbets, madmen would find no quarry and far fewer
victims.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
</div>
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<em>-- Daniel P. Roberts</em><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Cambria;">
Deborah Dwork, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Voices and Views: A
History of the Holocaust</i> (<st1:city w:st="on">Madison</st1:city>: <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Wisconsin</st1:placename></st1:place> Press, 2005), 45</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-66877835759921433452013-02-07T23:32:00.001-08:002013-02-07T23:32:20.555-08:00Putting the small "r" back in republicanFor those of you who have loyally or critically followed the ups and downs of "Alexander Marriott's Wit and Wisdom" for any of the past ten years, first let me extend my sincerest and most heartfelt thanks. I am glad that you found some value, however irregularly, in my occasional musings and, I like to think, occasional insights. Second, I will keep all of the old posts up in the archives of this new blog so that anything of the previous writings that were of use or interest can continue to be of use and interest to you and any new readers who stumble along and get bored with the issues of the day.<br />
<br />
For everyone, this blog has been reconceived and reborn under a new name and a new mission. Whereas before I blogged mostly to vent or for my own studied amusement, now I am transitioning into something mostly, if not completely, different. This blog, now called "THE rEPUBLICAN OBSERVER," (more on that in a moment) will feel and sound very similar to the old blog (I have not changed my philosophical, moral, or political outlook in any major respect), it will take on a more regular, professional, and high-toned voice. Why? Well, the previous blog was a child of an undergraduate imbroglio and remained afloat as an avenue to occasionally pursue ideas or thoughts in the manner common on many blogs--occasionally well thought out and composed, but just as often poorly executed and managed.<br />
<br />
The new mission is to apply my expertise as a scholar, researcher, and thinker to various problems of the day--focusing particular attention on issues that involve the cross-section of history and ideas. These are more numerous than you might, at first, think and many of my most recent posts in the old blog give an indication of the sort of work you should expect in the new blog. Why the small "r" in "rEPUBLICAN"? Simply, first and foremost, so that this blog is neither confused with, nor assumed to be sympathetic to, the modern Republican Party. There was no easy way to invoke this meaning (without using a different, less precise, word) than to simply capitalize every letter except the "r." Republicanism was, and is, a set of radical ideas and ways of thinking that predominated briefly in 17th century England, before refinement in the American colonies during the 18th century Enlightenment, famously eventuating in the American Revolution and the American Constitution. That is, of course, the severely truncated and simple version of the story, but it will suffice here.<br />
<br />
Those who know me, and the old blog, know that my politics would not be called conservative by Rick Santorum, the late Robert Bork, or Sean Hannity; they would also not be called liberal by Al Gore, Harry Reid, or Chuck Schumer. No libertarian in a movement largely dominated by the acolytes of Ron Paul would be interested in my affiliation either (and the feeling is very mutual). The best way to describe the political philosophy that will come through in this blog is to reference at least two traditions--one very old and largely dead, the other relatively new, alive, and very controversial. The first is what is now called "classical liberalism" (it was once, simply, "liberalism") and was the social, economic, and political thought of men like William Graham Sumner, David Ricardo, William Gladstone, etc. Liberals were once the dominant force in the Western world--the heyday of the 19th century. At their best, they pushed for freedom of trade, freedom of the seas, peace, commerce, and enlightenment--also the fair and free government of men and the honest and equal application of law. Civil society reached its apex under their tutelage. Sadly, today, it is largely saddled with the prejudices of an era that it had no more to do with than you or I and that, more than any other single force, it was concerned with destroying. Liberalism did not invent racial prejudice and imperialism (those existed in the 16th and 17th centuries, if not earlier) but because some putative liberals were racists and/or imperialists, latter-day Marxists of all stripes have never stopped castigating the movement as moribund and fundamentally unjust.<br />
<br />
The second tradition relates to the philosophical elucidation and correction of classical liberalism's real and myriad deficiencies and errors (what is the moral case for self-interest and capitalism, for example? John Stuart Mill spent a life trying to make "utility" the answer to that question and died a defeated fatalist muttering the bromides of socialism). This was achieved by the twentieth century's most unique, provocative, and ingenious philosopher, Ayn Rand. More critical for this blog than the moral case for capitalism and free government, however, are the epistemological insights to be gained from a study and understanding of Objectivism. Reality exists whether we gouge out our eyes to avoid seeing it or not--and we can, with our senses and our reason, evaluate it, categorize it, know it, and understand it. This is a truism of the modern world as regards things like medical science--a fact so implicitly acknowledged that every post-modernist in the country is clamoring to make the certainty of life-saving great technology their own undeniable "right" by the fiat of the state. But it is no less true in the world of the human sciences--the humanities. As much as we hear--and if you listen, the chorus is deafening--that certainty is impossible, that everything is a social construction, that opinions are all there is, this is not the case. Ideas and institutions either comport with evidence and the one and only reality from which all evidence derives or they do not. A is A. If Rand did nothing else for humanity, saving reality and reason from an epistemological dungeon would be enough to enshrine her in the pantheon of great thinkers.<br />
<br />
Now that you have some, albeit rather vague, idea of where this blogger comes from and what he is doing, the stage is set for commencement. At least once a week, a new essay will appear here, exploring and documenting some major issue of note and concern. Any and all comments are welcome and appreciated. Please feel free to recommend the blog to any and all comers. If anyone would like to discuss running any of these writings elsewhere, please feel free to contact me at <a href="mailto:alexandermarriott@hotmail.com">alexandermarriott@hotmail.com</a>. Also, if an issue arises or you think there is a story I would like to write about, feel free to contact me for those as well.<br />
<br />
One final thing. As an homage to the men whose pictures border the words of this blog, the revolution they began and won, the republic they founded and protected, I will sign all of my own writings as, "A republican." To adopt a pseudonym familiar to the readers of 18th and early 19th century letters--Cato, Junius, Publius, etc.--would be off putting and forced. To modernize the names from their classical source material, instead opting for Gibbon or Darwin or Edison or Galt, would similarly ring hollow in the modern ear and offend the modern eye. Rather, in keeping with the simplicity of life, form, and the political ideal of the early days of the American experiment--as well as the common bedrock of a people's limited consent that was (and is) the foundation of all legitimate government--"A republican" hits all the correct and proper notes. My identity is well enough known for anyone to suspect me of trying to stay mysterious or affecting a disguise. Owning and running this blog, and being responsible for producing everything on it will, I hope, allow a minor indulgence from my readers for one inoffensive and minor conceit.<br />
<br />
To another ten years, at least!<br />
<br />
<em><span style="font-family: inherit;">-- A republican</span></em>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-47901036195583802772012-08-21T22:43:00.001-07:002012-08-21T22:43:16.026-07:00Getting the Civil War Right and Wrong, A Reply to Jeff Schweitzer
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">By Alexander Marriott</span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As we approach the sesquicentennials of the Battle of
Antietam (17 September), Lincoln’s provisional emancipation proclamation (22
September), and the Emancipation Proclamation (1 January), people are taking
time to consider what the American Civil War was all about, it’s outcome and
immediate (unfulfilled) legacy, and the continuing relevance it has in American
life and politics today. One such person, scientist and former White House advisor
to Bill Clinton, Jeff Schweitzer, recently penned a short essay for the
Huffington Post entitled “<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html"><span style="color: blue;">Slavery
and the Civil War: Not What You Think</span></a>.” In the essay, Schweitzer (without
one quote or appeal to supporting primary source evidence) tells us that “what
we are all taught in school,” that “slavery was of course the central point of
contention” is not accurate and is, at best, fundamentally misleading. While
slavery was, indeed, a prime example of what motivated Southern anger and
morally destroyed any and all sympathy one could reasonably have for the
Confederacy then and now, it was not, argues Schweitzer, “the issue...per se.”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Then what was the war all about? “The war was fought over
state’s rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states,” says
Schweitzer, “The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one
through the specific dispute over slavery.” Of course, historians and Americans
hear this argument all the time—it is neither new nor original. What makes this
particular appeal odd is that we usually hear this argument in a delimited and
obvious number of places. First, many of the Confederate leaders—Jefferson
Davis for instance—downplayed slavery as only a point of conflict in a larger
more principled disagreement: “The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of
the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights
of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in
the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of
government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this
Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated
a revolution. They formed a new alliance, but within each State its government
has remained, the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. The
agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this
does not necessarily interrupt their international relations.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
You would almost think there was no slavery.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Why did they do this if they were not sincerely correct (as
most credible historians, myself included, maintain)? The first and most
obvious reason had to do with foreign relations. The Confederacy’s surest path
to independence was recognition and assistance from Great Britain—something
that would have been quite out of the question had the chief public claim to
the world for why the Confederates should prevail been the exaltation of human
slavery. This is one of the reasons why historians focus so much on the
contemporaneously embarrassing and revealing extemporaneous speech delivered by
the Confederacy’s Vice President, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia in Savannah
on 21 March 1861. At the end of explaining all the ways in which the new
Confederate Constitution had allegedly remedied the errors of the Constitution
of 1787 they had so recently abandoned, Stephens ended his elaboration in a
remarkable indictment of Thomas Jefferson and full-throated defense of the
Confederacy’s truly great innovation (it is a long speech, this is a long
excerpt, but every utterance of it is absolutely essential):</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes
for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new
constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to
our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper
status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause
of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had
anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split."
He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether
he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands,
may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading
statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the
enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was
wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they
knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day
was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be
evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the
constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is
true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should
last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional
guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those
ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of
the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the
government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind
blew." </span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">Our
new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are
laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal
to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his
natural and normal condition.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">This,
our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this
great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the
process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of
science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can
recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their
day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty
years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal
above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an
aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity.
One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is
forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery
fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that
the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges
and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their
conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their
whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of
the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of
Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled,
ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to
war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or
mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining
slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle
founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to
him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he
and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately
fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully
against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted;
but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring
against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the
Creator had made unequal. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">In
the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the
length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have
stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to
doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout
the civilized and enlightened world. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">As I
have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all
truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so
with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his
principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the
circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical
profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him,
admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look
with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon
which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the
principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in
furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded
upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the
same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system
commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race,
however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with
the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against
Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The
architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the
proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum
of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by
experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the
inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the
ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His
ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to
differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star
in glory."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">The
great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His
laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things
else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with
these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become
the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new
edifice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: normal; margin: 5pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;">I
have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we
would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many
they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if
we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are
obliged to, and must triumph.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Stephens’s elaborate and euphoric exaltation of the new era
his government heralded was a public relations nightmare internationally. Great
Britain, the world’s leading power and arch-foe of international slavery could
hardly make any moves against Lincoln on behalf of a power that purported to be
ushering in a new millennium of chattel slavery.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Of course, after the war was over and lost, Confederates for
the most part began to clean up their historical legacies. Stephens went so far
as to claim that his famous speech was not actually his at all. Jefferson
Davis, till the end, pretended the whole effort had a larger more grandiose
purpose and sympathetic historians have, ever since, taken him at his word.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The next group, outside of bona fide Confederates, one
usually sees this argument from are late 19<sup>th</sup> century reconciliation
historians whose ideas—Civil War a tragedy with heroes on both sides,
Reconstruction a horrible social experiment that did not end soon
enough—lingered well into the 20<sup>th</sup> century (they are still with us
in a marginalized, angry, and perniciously belligerent form). Why such people
would endorse the notion that slavery was not the actual motivator behind the
Confederacy and the Civil War is rather obvious given the aftermath of the war.
While the North remained surprisingly committed to policing the South with an
occupying army and guaranteeing the citizenship and voting rights of the
freedmen, that effort eventually collapsed and white Northerners were all too
willing to quickly slide back into a racially indifferent hands-off policy
toward the Southern States—all of which were quickly “redeemed” by former
Confederates completely uninterested in the civil rights of their poor black
neighbors. Since whites nationally where not sufficiently outraged by this
development to exercise federal power to do anything to stop it, the temptation
to reconcile with Southern whites and share a common heritage that downplayed
the festering problem of Black civil rights proved too good to resist. Slavery
moved to the background—the war, indeed, was fought over States’ rights (right
to do what precisely was left to the murky libraries that professional
historians were content to ignore for decades).</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The only people today that one usually sees this argument
from are modern Southerners who, contrary to Schweitzer’s claim, are not taught
the notion in schools that the war was all about slavery. One also sees it in
“Politically Incorrect” histories published by hack historians looking to cash
in on prejudice rather than scholarship and facts. It’s odd to see a modern
Democrat on the Huffington Post repeating these tired lines from those whose
motivations are typically soaked or tinged in racial animus.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
I do not believe Jeff Schweitzer is a dupe or a racist.
Instead, I think his essay has a very obvious contemporary political purpose
that is revealed quite plainly to anyone familiar with the primary sources
surrounding the Confederate theory of the Union and Constitution, as well as
the intellectual justifications for nullification and secession. According to
Schweitzer (and this is rather original, though it has been repeated by many on
the Left, like <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/02/chris_matthews_tea_party_reminds_me_of_confederates_in_civil_war.html"><span style="color: blue;">Chris
Matthews</span></a> and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/08/02/lind_tea_party/"><span style="color: blue;">Michael
Lind</span></a>), what was actually motivating the South was not some long gone moral
crime like chattel slavery but something eerily familiar: “Specifically, eleven
southern states seceded from the Union in protest against federal legislation
that limited the expansion of slavery <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">claiming
that such legislation violated the tenth amendment, which they argued trumped
the Supremacy Clause</i>. The war was indeed about protecting the institution
of slavery, but only as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a specific case
of a state’s right to declare a federal law null and void</i>.” Now here is a
claim that, surprise!, links a modern political agenda—the affinity of modern
Conservatives, from Clarence Thomas to Ronald Reagan, for the tenth amendment
as a tool to put the breaks on the federal government—to a cause that “was
unjust, ... unseemly,” and “treasonous.”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But, since Schweitzer provides absolutely no evidence for
this claim, what—if any—evidence is there that the Confederates believed the
tenth amendment trumped the Constitution’s supremacy clause and allowed them to
secede, and that this is why the war came? According to Schweitzer, the war
could just as easily resulted from the Federal government passing a law to do
anything that Southern states decided was beyond the pale (in the case of the
war, of course, they seceded largely before Lincoln was even inaugurated into
office, the rest after he called for volunteers after Sumter). This is a very
large claim. Now, I, of course, believe that it is quite plain, historically,
that the doctrines of secession and nullification were inventions of political
expediency, first to try to scare off interference with slavery within the
Union and finally as a way of getting out of the Union “legally.” That is,
without a war that Southerners had known for nearly a century would destroy
slavery entirely. I have covered this development broadly in a post entitled “<a href="http://www.alexandermarriott.blogspot.com/2012/04/history-of-nullification-origins.html"><span style="color: blue;">The
History of Nullification: Origins, Context, and Dangers (Part One)</span></a>” and
which will be completed shortly in a concluding essay.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As Mr. Schweitzer has provided no evidence to substantiate
his claims, he is somewhat at my mercy, so I will be brief. First, let us
consider the South Carolina declaration of why they were seceding. There is
one, non-specified mention of the tenth amendment but that was not the linchpin
of the South Carolinian argument. In fact, mention of the tenth amendment (“<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”) was quite unessential for
Confederates. They grounded their theory of secession on the nature of the
Union as a compact between co-equal states. Much of the South Carolinian
declaration thus hinged on the notion that if any of the parties violated the
compact—in this case, Northern States hampering enforcement of the
constitutionally legitimate Fugitive Slave law of 1850—the offended parties
were free to exit: “We affirm that these ends for which this Government was
instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made
destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States
have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic
institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of
the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful
the institution of slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among
them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign
the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted
thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been
incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
Yet, Schweitzer claims that us reading these documents is simply tunnel vision:
“We understandably focus on this specific while ignoring the broader issue in
contest. But a subset of a set is not the set. An example of an issue in not
the issue. Slavery was a specific issue of a perceived violation of a state’s
rights, over which the country went to war. Claiming the Civil War was about
slavery alone is like saying that the recent revolution in Egypt was about
unseating Mubarek and nothing else.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">I will come back
to this central claim about slavery in relation to the constitutional arguments
that Confederates came up with to try to save it within the system and then
from war outside the system in a moment. First let’s take a look at another
state’s formal declaration of what it was doing and why: Mississippi. “Our
position,” said the seceding delegates, “is thoroughly identified with the
institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.” Here there
is not one iota of tenth amendment talk—the entire salvo is slavery top to
bottom. Mississippi purported to leave the Union as a harried fox pursued by
ruthless dogs: “Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent
longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must
either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions
of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure
this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this,
our fathers separated from the Crown of England.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">So, slavery was merely
a “specific issue”? Did those in the North reject the tenth amendment or
believe that the Constitution’s supremacy clause was in conflict with it? If we
take Lincoln’s first inaugural address as evidence, that seems entirely
unlikely: “One section of our country believes slavery is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">right</i>, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">wrong</i>, and ought not to be extended.
This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause of the
Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade, are
each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the
moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body
of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break
over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse
in both cases <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">after</i> the separation of
the sections, than before.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The only substantial dispute</i>. Either
Schweitzer believes Lincoln improperly diagnosed the problems of the Union—his
perspicacity is one of the things for which he was and is most famous—or
decided to gloss over the “real” issue at stake in the most important speech he
had ever given in his life up to that point.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">The constitutional
filibustering of the Confederates, before and after the war, as well as their
historical apologists, should not blind us to the plain truth that slavery—and
its feared death through restriction to the States where it already existed,
perpetually under real and moral assaults from the North—was what agitated
Calhoun, Toombs, Stephens, Davis, Ruffin, Hammond, and all the rest of the
intellectual leaders of the Old South. The Constitution first served Calhoun as
an aegis through which he might carve out a space for slavery’s perpetual
protection. In the decade after Calhoun’s death, most of his legatees gradually
abandoned that notion and instead embraced an alleged Constitutional corollary of
nullification that would allow them to legally break up the government while—hopefully—avoiding
a war that was sure to destroy slavery. It was a long shot, but after Lincoln’s
election provided evidence that the South could be forever dominated by a more
dynamic, wealthier, and more populous North whose inhabitants had no interest in
the peculiar institutions of the South, many Southern leaders felt it was a
gamble they could no longer afford to ignore. And the war came. But the issue
was—and always was, from Missouri, through the Nullification fight, and the
crisis of 1850—slavery, slavery, and slavery. The rest was nefarious and
obscuring subterfuge, and still is to this day.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Speech
in Montgomery, Alabama (Inaugural Address as Provisional President), 18
February 1861, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Jefferson Davis: The
Essential Writings</i>, ed. William J. Cooper, Jr. (New York: Modern Library,
2004), 199.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">
Alexander Stephens, “Corner-Stone” Speech, Savannah, Georgia, 21 March 1861, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">American Speeches: Political Oratory from
the Revolution to the Civil War </i>(New York: Library of America, 2006),
721-724.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> South
Carolina Declaration of the Causes of Secession, Charleston, 24 December 1860, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Civil War: The First Year Told By Those
Who Lived It</i>, eds. Brooks D. Simpson, Stephen W. Sears, and Aaron
Sheehan-Dean (New York: Library of America, 2011), 153-154.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">
Mississippi Declaration of the Causes of Secession, Jackson, 9 January 1861, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Civil War: The First Year</i>, 183-185.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Abraham
Lincoln: First Inaugural Address, Washington D.C., 4 March 1861, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Civil War: The First Year</i>, 216.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-51363222393439021202012-08-21T10:02:00.001-07:002012-08-21T10:02:08.786-07:00History GuysCheck out the radio show I am doing with Daniel Roberts (M.A. History) loosely known as the History Guys. We chat mostly about History and Politics/Current Events, but we have call-in guests, humor, book recommendations, etc. We have a new show every Sunday at 5 PM Eastern / 2 PM Pacific -- beginning on September 1 we are switching to Saturday at 5 PM Eastern / 2 PM Pacific. Join us with questions on Facebook (History Guys with Alex and Dan) or Twitter (@AVM_Historian & @thelostclam) & on the show's blogtalkradio page. You can also listen live and ask questions and make comments in a live chat room. We welcome all input and interactions.<br />
<br />
This Sunday we will be discussing Niall Ferguson's recent Newsweek op-ed about President Obama and the broader role Historians play in society and politics. We are also devoting the lionshare of our time to discussing the continuing legacy of the American Civil War.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.blogtalkradio.com/history-guys">http://www.blogtalkradio.com/history-guys</a>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-41524769262117044202012-08-16T02:24:00.002-07:002012-08-16T11:35:24.421-07:00Historical Apples and Oranges Served Over Vacuous Argumentum ad Misericordiam<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Historical Apples and Oranges Served Over Vacuous Argumentum ad Misericordiam<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Now that presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has named his choice for the Vice-Presidential nomination—seven-term Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan—the long knives are out all across the punditry class, competing to see who first pierces the armor of the shiny new knight entering the lists. Some of these efforts are extremely silly. Take, for example, Katrina Vanden Heuvel’s <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-paul-ryan-cruel-not-courageous/2012/08/14/a2dbd388-e56b-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html"><span style="color: blue;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Washington Post</i> op-ed</span></a> from August 14, where she condemns the “audacity” of announcing Ryan “on a ship named for the birthplace of progressivism, to Aaron Copland’s ‘Fanfare for the Common Man.’” Of course, the battleship USS <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Wisconsin</i> was apropos for Congressman Ryan because he is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">from Wisconsin</i> (duh) and the Republican Party was founded there well before the intellectual poison known as Progressivism sprung from the land of badgers. As for Aaron Copland’s ‘Fanfare for the Common Man,’ since when has that piece of now classic American music from, perhaps, America’s greatest composer been owned by one group of partisans? Only Democrats can play it and appreciate it? Balderdash! Talk about small ball. Vanden Heuval has always been petty, but this is sad even by her sorry standards (which are few and far between).</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But then there is Amy Davidson’s attempt in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/08/paul-ryans-father-and-al-smiths.html"><span style="color: blue;">The New Yorker</span></a></i> to make an odd historical comparison between the circumstances of a young Al Smith when his father died and the young Paul Ryan, similarly circumstanced, nearly a century later. The comparison, one is led to believe, illustrates how far the country has come because Al Smith had to drop out of school to support his family while Paul Ryan received Social Security survivor benefits that he saved and used to finance his education, support his family, and launch his political career. Also, Ryan’s great-grandfather founded a construction business that built roads, railroads, and airports, thus achieving success, says Davidson, due “to a multi-generation commitment, on the part of this country, to investment in infrastructure.” The differences between Smith’s situation when his father died and Ryan’s, suggests Davidson, shows just how great have been the results of the hard work of the New Dealers—results that Ryan may or may not now be threatening in some way. Obviously this suggestion is meant as tragic irony. But her historical evidence is shallow—based only on the Pulitzer Prize winning historical tour de force <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Power-Broker-Robert-Moses-Fall/dp/0394720245/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345103247&sr=1-1&keywords=the+power+broker"><span style="color: blue;">The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York</span></a> </i>by Robert A. Caro—and misleading. While Caro’s book is important and excellent, its focus is not Al Smith, but Robert Moses—and his influence on and implementation of the supposed “multi-generation commitment...to investment in infrastructure” (more on this in a moment). But even her attempt to turn Caro’s description of Smith’s biography into an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad misericordiam </i>justification of the New Deal is flawed at best. For instance, Davidson falsely claims, and pretends that it is based on Caro’s work, that Smith’s family was “destroyed financially by uninsured medical costs,” and that Smith’s childhood was lost to having to support his family. This is not only dishonest and misleading, it’s pure anachronism.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Our current exaltation of suspended adolescence lasting into the twenties certainly was not shared by the Americans of Smith’s era (or those of any era for that matter). Children going to work to supplement or provide family incomes was not unusual in rural or urban settings for many centuries. Alexander Hamilton, for instance, himself an industrious and useful worker from an early age, tried to sell the promotion of manufacturing to the congress on the grounds that it would provide useful employment for women and children: “It is worthy of particular remark, that, in general, women and Children are rendered more useful and the latter more early useful by manufacturing establishments, than they would otherwise be. Of the number of persons employed in the Cotton Manufactories of Great Britain, it is computed that 4/7 nearly are women and children; of whom the greatest proportion are children and many of them of a very tender age.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a> As Davidson humorously points out while trying attack former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, even if Ryan had not received Social Security insurance payments, child labor laws would have prevented a young fatherless adolescent from being economically valuable and supportive of his family. The fact that Smith’s story led to a greater amount of political success than Ryan’s has so far (whose father undoubtedly paid far more in taxes generally and social security in particular than his son ever saw—thus if the government had merely left the man alone, he could have used that money to protect himself and his family against accidental hardships) Davidson brushes off since, allegedly and without any attempt to prove the statement, “the attrition rate in such circumstances [Smith’s situation in the late 19<sup>th</sup> century] is a whole lot higher.” Smith was the Governor of New York and twice the Democratic nominee for the Presidency in 1924 and 1928. But, Davidson assures us, Smith’s situation was truly very desperate and, despite his great success, we should take this 19<sup>th</sup> century example as if it were the opposite of what it actually is; that is, a great and inspiring story of hard work and perseverance in a time and economic climate of easy mobility and opportunity. We are, instead, supposed to treat it as a heart-breaking tragic failure of a society too callous for a proper “social compact.”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
But how desperate was it really? There is no doubt that after Smith’s father died, according to Caro, the family was in a real financial pickle. But let’s travel through the story—the entire story—as Caro tells it, and keep in mind the economic realities of today. As many historians, such as <a href="http://www.amazon.com/From-Mutual-Aid-Welfare-State/dp/0807848417/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345101166&sr=8-1&keywords=from+mutual+aid+to+the+welfare+state"><span style="color: blue;">David Beito</span></a>, remind us, mutual aid was the norm in the 19<sup>th</sup> and early 20<sup>th</sup> centuries. Voluntary association and civic cooperation had a long pedigree in the United States and American lore. Benjamin Franklin’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Autobiography, </i>for instance, inspired countless volunteer fire brigades, libraries, hospitals, colleges, reading clubs, mutual aid societies, and innumerable other civic and charitable organizations. Al Smith’s family, it turns out, is unexceptionable in this regard.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
We are also all at least vaguely familiar with the fact that the economy of the late 19<sup>th</sup> century and early 20<sup>th</sup> century was not hampered by onerous and encyclopedic regulations and taxes—thus creating a far freer market for every commodity, including labor. Smith and his family were, again, no exceptions in this regard. Their friends generously made sure “that funeral expenses were paid.” Then, the very night of the funeral, Smith’s widowed mother marched “to an umbrella factory and got a job that she could start the next morning.” When she found her earnings were not enough to support her family “she asked for piecework that she could do at home” which she received. She performed these jobs until her own health began to wane and then, with “the help of friends, she opened a tiny grocery and candy store in the basement of the building in which the Smiths lived, but it quickly became obvious that the store would never provide enough to support the family.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
At this point, Al Smith, a few months past 13 and few more shy of completing the eighth grade at the catholic school he attended, went to work. First he worked at a trucking firm for two years at $3 a week. Next he became a shipping clerk for two years at $8 a week. Next he found employ at the Fulton Fish Market for $12 a week. After four years at the Fish Market, he found a job “carrying heavy pipes at a pump works,” for $15 a week. Soon thereafter Smith was noticed as a potential recruit by New York’s Democratic Tammany machine and the rest, as they say, is history. Given the nearly non-existent inflation of the period (in fact the late 1890s were a deflationary period in most respects, and contrary to goofball Keynesian economics of the 21<sup>st</sup> century, deflation was not perceived as a big problem—and, indeed, it was not a problem), Smith’s rise through the ranks of unskilled laborers—not to mention his meteoric rise to the very top levels of political power and prestige in the State of New York and the country—is remarkable, but hardly unique. Others may not have made it to the top of a major party’s national ticket, but getting ahead was not an impossible task for people in dire straits like Al Smith. In the span of eight years, from the age of thirteen to twenty-one, he increased his earnings 500% and was able to support his family on his own through hard work and an ease of entry into new jobs that the modern economy sorely lacks—and that was before he became a Tammany man and began developing connections to advance his economic fortunes. He did not complete a college education. And what of it? That had no impact on his fortune anymore than it did any number of other American success stories before or after. Davidson’s choice of Smith is bizarre. Conceivably the only reason he was chosen was that his father died before he reached the age of maturity, as did Mr. Ryan’s father. But Smith did better without Social Security than Ryan has done with it, so far anyway.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Unable to merely leave it at an extremely inapt and dis-analogous comparison, Davidson then makes this dubious argument: “It is possible that Ryan’s father, who was fifty-five and a high earner, paid more in than his son got out; but the point is that the social insurance—the social compact—was there whether he did or not.” So it’s morally justifiable to expropriate Paul Ryan’s father for three or more decades, hampering his ability to provide for his family in good times and bad, in order so that, should a tragic accident occur, his son can collect a fraction of the money his father lost over the years? Had Ryan’s father not died, his money would have been entirely lost and of no use to the people he valued most in his own life. Instead, at the point of a gun, it would have gone to complete strangers, both those in duress and the bureaucrats collecting and distributing the money. The “social compact,” aside from being philosophically dubious, is morally perverse. It also has nothing whatever to do with any American principles and ideals at the time of the Revolution or the Founding. In fact, it’s quite antithetical to them.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The other dig at Ryan in Davidson’s piece is that his family helped build roads and other civic engineering projects, like O’Hare Airport—part of the “multi-generation commitment, on the part of this country, to investment in infrastructure.” Supposedly this is meant to function as a mild jab at Ryan’s “hypocrisy;” since he allegedly is hostile to funding the very projects his family sought to build as a livelihood for generations. Here, curiously, Davidson decides that Robert Caro’s book is no longer useful. That’s odd given the subject matter of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Power Broker</i>—New York’s sickeningly powerful unelected emperor of public works projects, Robert Moses. For instance, had Davidson read Chapters 37 & 38, carefully, it would be almost unfathomable that she could so glibly and foolishly pretend that the “investment in infrastructure” was some unalloyed venture in greatness.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In those two Chapters, Caro examines the wreckage unleashed on the residents in the way of just one mile of Moses’s 627 miles of roads in and around New York City. Moses’s Cross-Bronx Expressway inexplicably veered through a successful and vibrant neighborhood of more than 1,500 apartments and over 5,000 residents when it could easily have been routed two blocks south through an adjoining park. Despite efforts to publicize their situation, get engineers to examine and defend an alternate route, and exact promises from elected officials, Moses successfully threatened and cajoled anyone who got in his way (usually by promising to turn off the spigots of New York State and Federal highway funds).<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> He eventually succeeded in getting the city of New York to condemn the offending neighborhood, force out its residents one by one, and then demolish it and build his bizarrely uncharacteristic mile of curved expressway. Caro explains:</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
Moses angrily charge that the borough president was raising objections now only because it was an election year and there was “local opposition.” Any local hardship will be “mitigated,” if not entirely removed, “by the elaborate steps which we have taken to move tenants in an orderly way into public, quasi-public and other housing,” and should be disregarded anyway, he said. “This route will be the backbone of traffic for centuries after a few objecting tenants have disappeared from the scene.... You have from time to time remarked that I do not have to be elected to office. Perhaps that is why I am in a position to protect the really long-range public interest.” He used his old threat—“Only recently you lost a substantial amount of ... money in the Bronx” by “blocking the Bruckner Expressway”; the Cross-Bronx “will cost more than thirty million dollars additional.... Would you like to see the project, now half completed, abandoned and remaining state and federal monies spent elsewhere?”—and then escalated it by threatening to resign as Construction Coordinator (“I should not care to carry this responsibility any further if borough politics are to be injected into it”)<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The housing Moses pledged to help the evicted and homeless tenants move into was almost entirely non-existent. The contract from the city to assist the residents find these new homes, however, was not. It does not take much imagination to guess who was behind the company in charge of “distributing” the money:</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
The men who owned stock in Nassau Management [the company that won the contract to relocate residents evicted for expressway construction] thus made fortunes without risking more than a token investment. The ostensible key men behind the company—its founders of record—were two low-echelon City Housing Authority employees who quit the Authority to form the firm. But they were only front men. The key figures behind Nassau Management, men who would profit from the relocation of the East Tremont tenants, were William S. Lebwohl, counsel of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority; Samuel Brooks, assistant director of the Mayor’s Slum Clearance Committee; and Housing Authority chairman Philip J. Cruise—three of Moses’ key aides.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
On top of the clear cronyism and conflicts of interest was the scandalous and corrupt way this organization performed the job for which it was paid millions of taxpayer dollars:</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
It must have been an accident that the “East Tremont” office opened by the “highly efficient” Nassau Management Company was located not in East Tremont but in West Farms, another neighborhood, inconveniently far away for the 1,530 families the office was supposed to serve. It must have been an accident that the office was open only a few hours a day, that those hours were constantly changing, that no notice was ever given of what those hours were going to be, and that inquiring about them by telephone was almost impossible since the single phone number listed for the office seemed to be always busy—so that often East Tremont housewives, having made the long trek over to West Farms, found waiting for them only a locked door. It must have been an accident that there were never enough company representatives in the office, so that the housewives waiting for help had to wait on long lines.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Robert Caro is certainly no right-winger, but his honest recount of the facts for which he found evidence presents a tale of horrors that only the most callous of statist goons would ignore to propagate the myth that without government action and control we did not and would not have roads, airports, universities, or social support organizations and networks. History not only firmly and completely refutes this sophistry, it also shines the light on the horrific waste and corruption of every government usurpation of these previously private and competitive sectors of the economy.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Davidson’s use of historical analogy is not only quixotic, it is quite simply and utterly inaccurate. It disproves her point—assuming she has one—that Al Smith’s situation was worse than Paul Ryan’s; that social security insurance payments extracted from the savings, insurance, and retirements of others are the only, or best, or most ethical manner for people to confront the adversity of losing a father. Furthermore, she ignores the only evidence she presents—Robert Caro’s brilliant book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Power Broker</i>—when it has inconvenient things to say that undercut her public works hagiography or even Al Smith’s meteoric rise from adversity through his own hard work. Engaging in anachronism—that is, pretending that 21<sup>st</sup> century American squeamishness about child labor was a common thing a century ago anywhere on earth, and then pretending it was some manner of unusual or bad thing that a thirteen year old boy would work to supplement or support the family income. It was not. Dropping historical context may cut it at <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The New Yorker</i>, but it’s a clear sign that partisan hackery is afoot.</div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Report on the Subject of Manufactures, 5 December 1791, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alexander Hamilton: Writings</i>, ed. Joanne B. Freeman (New York: Library of America, 2001), 661-662.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Robert A. Caro, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York</i> (New York: Vintage, 1974), 114-116.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid, 850-894.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid, 866.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid, 878-879.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid, 879.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-87052789222691147602012-08-09T20:04:00.002-07:002012-08-09T22:35:30.701-07:00<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">More bad news from
the “Maddow” Dam<o:p></o:p></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Yuma, Arizona<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Friday, 16 July 2021<o:p></o:p></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It’s more bad news at the Rachel Maddow Memorial Dam.
Already the most expensive and elaborate government engineering project ever
undertaken, the “Maddow” Dam, as most refer to it, has suffered another setback
due to concerns for the fate of the endangered <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bufo punctatus</i>, or red-spotted toad. This is the third endangered
species that has threatened the project in as many years.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Work has been called to a halt indefinitely as a new team of
on-site evaluators are flown in from the Environmental Protection Agency to
assess whether or not the taxpayer’s $105 billion has been for naught. As the
agricultural hinterland surrounding the Colorado River Valley in the Sonoran
Desert eagerly awaits the expected flood of irrigating water created by the
reservoir behind the Dam, some ponder if the project will ever be finished.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
“I just don’t know,” said local Yuman, Charlene Stevens,
“We’ve seen this happen several times now and they haven’t even started pouring
concrete yet.” But at least one resident, Bradley George—chairman of the Local
Yuma Occupy Auxiliary 202—thinks the stoppage is a good thing. “We never wanted
this here anyway,” George said in a phone interview with reporters, “it’s just
another giveaway to the private contractors and agri-businesses that make money
off of growing non-organic, non-local food. It’s for damn sure they didn’t get
the toad’s permission.”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Undertaken at the end of President Barack Obama’s second
term in 2016, the “Maddow” Dam memorializes the noted advocate of government
engineering projects and former MSNBC show host who tragically died in 2015
while shooting an ill-fated commercial at the Hoover Dam. Many will remember
the wave of support that swept over the country for a second, bigger, Hoover
Dam project in the weeks that followed as the nation watched the recovery
operation for the anchor’s remains—a three month endeavor that shut down most
of the Dam’s power operations as the turbines were individually removed and
cleaned.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
That was over six years ago. While the Hoover Dam was built
in little more than four years at $50 million ($800 million in 2016 dollars),
the “Maddow” Dam is already well over it’s modestly ambitious original $2
billion outlay. The chief culprits for the cost and time overruns, so far, have
been the repetitive and expensive environmental surveys, the first of which
prevented groundbreaking for three years.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
It also has not helped that while Hoover Dam was built two
years ahead of schedule with cheap and eager labor from among the First Great
Depression’s unemployed, the “Maddow” Dam project managers have been forced to
pay “prevailing union wages” to everyone associated with the project. The most
recent project manager for the Dam’s construction (he resigned when notified of
the stoppage due to concerns over the red-spotted toad), Carlton Wellock III,
told the Associate Press that managing the project was akin to “waiting in line
at the DMV while slowly moving backwards as the song ‘My Sharona’ plays louder
and louder, over and over again.” While some fans of The Knack have puzzled
over the meaning of this, most have interpreted the statement as evidence of
Wellock’s intense frustration.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As the workers take their most recent paid leaves of absence
to await the findings of the EPA’s investigation of the “Maddow” Dam’s impact
on the habitat of the red-spotted toad, many around the country wonder if this
project will ever really get underway, let alone finished. The optimism
associated with the project’s namesake about the ease with which these
grandiose projects could be undertaken and completed seems largely absent six
years and tens of billions of dollars later.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
“Well, we can’t just give up,” President Palin said to
reporters at her Press Conference on Wednesday, “the ‘Maddow’ Dam represents
good old-fashioned American get-up-and-go.” When pressed about whether or not
she plans to press Congress for more funds for a project already 52 times more
expensive than originally planned, given her pledge to reduce the nation’s $24
trillion debt, the President replied: “You betcha!”</div>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-75613361778381170002012-05-04T07:33:00.000-07:002012-05-04T07:33:06.909-07:00<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"><strong>The Red Tape Horrors of the Bureaucratically
Unemployed<o:p></o:p></strong></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
By Alexander Marriott, 9-29-2010</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As I stared at the passing scenery, I realized I hadn’t
stood a chance. The cards were dealt years ago and I didn’t know it until the
very moment I had anticipated success. The let down was tremendous. For those
of us fighting for work in Las Vegas, there is nothing quite like the mountain
of red tape and paperwork surrounding seemingly every job—particularly in the
public sector. According to a recent Las Vegas Review Journal piece [http://www.lvrj.com/news/reid--angle-to-answer-queries-on-economy-103510139.html],
the unemployment rate in the city is 14.4%, nearly ten points beyond the 5% rate
economists traditionally associate with “full employment.” The following is
perhaps an idiosyncratic tale of the failed pursuit of one of those jobs. Some
of the principles one might draw from it have greater relevance for not only
our local economy, but for the national economy more broadly.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Over five years ago, before I left Las Vegas to pursue a
graduate degree in American history, I was a substitute teacher with the Clark
County School District (CCSD). It was a brief, but enjoyable experience. It was
my first time in the classroom and it was very valuable in my later collegiate
teaching. I left after the school year ended, fully expecting that I would
probably never live in Las Vegas on any sort of permanent basis again. Life is
always full of surprises.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
After returning in May 2010 to finish writing my
dissertation and perhaps save some money, I sat down and evaluated my
employment prospects. My mind immediately returned to my old manner of
employment, but to my dismay, the school year was ending and CCSD was not
accepting substitute teacher applications. Several months and interviews later,
early August brought a reopening of the process and I immediately submitted an
application. The first part of the process was relatively quick, I was
interviewed by August 16, and shortly thereafter all of my references had
reported. It all went, in light of what happened later, far too easily. My
previous experience was seen as the advantage that it is, and my interviewer
was sufficiently impressed with my enhanced credentials (I had taught my own
college level courses since leaving) that I seemed on the fast track to getting
back in the classroom.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Day after day passed as I continued to look for other
jobs—any jobs—and on nearly every day I checked my status with the CCSD
employment website. Finally, after a month, I was informed via that website
that my application had been approved as of September 20, when they mailed me
their pre-employment packet. The website actually said “Pre-employment packet
was mailed 9/20.” I live in Las Vegas; care to take a guess as to when it
arrived? If you guessed within a week, you’d be wrong. It did not arrive until
September 28—I received my transcripts from my graduate school in Massachusetts
two days after my request, yet it takes over a week to receive mail within the
city?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
So I open the packet to begin what I know from prior
experience is a small pile of additional paperwork. I also need to begin
planning to purchase money orders ($60 to pay CCSD for my background check,
$161 to pay the Nevada Department of Education for a new license) and other
trips into various parts of the city—for a Tuberculosis test, for
fingerprinting, to search for the peculiarly hidden Nevada Department of
Education (NDE).</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
And so it begins. Oh, by the way, the letter telling me the
various things I needed to do and pay to complete my application tells me that
I need to finish it all within thirty days or my file will be destroyed. The
letter that was mailed on September 20 and received on September 28 is dated
September 17. So I have either until October 17 or October 20 to complete these
tasks—the letter does not say which. On top of this, I have a previously
scheduled trip to Massachusetts for dissertation business October 4-10.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Of course, the tuberculosis testing at CCSD headquarters
only occurs on Tuesday mornings (I received the letter on a Tuesday afternoon,
it being the second Tuesday after the issuance of the letter under either
dating system, making October 12 somewhat important). So I take care of the
fingerprinting/background check portion of the process first. This is rather
easy. Pay your $60, waive your objections to the check, let them digitally
fingerprint you and you’re done.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Now I’m off to the NDE to pay for a new license—they also
need my college transcripts (I have a BA in history from UNLV and have an ABD
status in the American history PhD program at Clark University), $161 money
order, a completed license application, and two fingerprint cards received
during the previous step. I have all of that ready to go, and after reaching
the reception room (which is empty) I bound over to the receptionists to get
this part of the task over with as quickly as possible.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
After signing some of the materials I have brought with me
pursuant to the helpful attendant’s instructions she begins to look me up in
the files, noting that I had a Substitute Teaching license in the state once
upon a time. Laughing, I confirm this, indicating that I had been a substitute
teacher once upon a time. Then she asks me, “So, have you done your Nevada School
Law and Praxis One?” I stare blankly, racking my brain for what she is
referring to, this being the first time I have heard of either of these during
the two months I’d been in application limbo. I respond: “I have no idea what
you’re talking about, what are those?”</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Now, at this point of the process, I am informed (even the
woman at the NDE was surprised that no one at CCSD had bothered to mention
this) that since I once had a license and it expired in 2008, there are holds
that I have to clear before I can ever get another license. Praxis I is a
reading, writing, and arithmetic competency examination that if taken
electronically costs $80, but $90 if by the paper-based method. The Nevada
School Law test is given three times a year for $25-35, while also given ad hoc
the rest of the year to poor saps like me who need results quickly for $100.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Bear in mind that five years ago, when I was fresh out of
UNLV, and had no experience at all, no exams were required before being turned
loose on unsuspecting Vegas youths (I was 21 at the time), but now my
competency needed confirmation—after five years of graduate school and
college-level teaching experience. I was informed that the Praxis I exam can be
waived if one has a Masters Degree. When I point out that being ABD (which
means I have completed all but the dissertation) means that should I ever drop
out of my PhD program they will award me a Masters degree—this is what allows
me to apply for and receive University level jobs—she laments that it needs to
be indicated on the transcript. Oy vey!</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
On top of all that, I am running out of time and money. Because
in addition to everything else, I will also need to fork over $15 for an online
training course before I can submit the rest of my application materials. But
it is all a moot point. The Nevada School Law test, which is administered twice
a month at the $100 rate, was last given on—you guessed it—September 28, the
day I received the packet and the day before I found out the test existed. The
next two tests are October 6 & 20—one day I will not be in town, the other
is the very last day to finish all of the tasks.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This story began with the Las Vegas unemployment
rate—14.4%—a rate that may very well cost all manner of politician their jobs.
But, aside from the broader national and global economies, Nevadans are not
helping themselves by piling on fees, tests, and endless layers of paperwork to
the simple act of applying for work. If it could potentially cost me $421 just
to get to the orientation (maybe!) of the process, how much must it be costing
the State to pay everyone involved with processing all of my paperwork and test
results and tuberculosis tests? There are many public sector jobs like this. Try
applying to work with the TSA. I’ve been stuck on the airport assessment phase
(step 5 out of 12) for months. When I inquired into the matter, the TSA
informed me that this was normal and to just wait for an email. That was July.
Still waiting. Not that I actually want to work for the TSA, it was more a curiosity application that anything else. Imagine if I were someone who really wanted a shot at that job, however.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Any politician who promises change based in adding to this
unnatural and immovable leviathan—or more terrifying—applying its perversions to
other even more vital parts of the economy, healthcare for instance, should be
immediately hissed away from whatever lectern or podium he is hiding behind.
Change in this situation, in Las Vegas, in Carson City, in Washington, can only
come through getting rid of these miles upon miles of red tape. Bureaucratic
regulations are grinding everything to a halt at precisely the moment we need
more than ever to get back to work and be productive promptly. When we need
dynamism, we are met with stifling stagnation.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The private sector can hire more quickly, but that is
changing for the worse. Not only are job applications in the private sector
becoming similar to their public counterparts as paperwork nightmares, but
government policies have finally caught up with us. Having our cake and eating
it too, all on the backs of those who could and would pay, was never tenable
and certainly never moral. For those worried about the pain and scariness that
will accompany the dismantling of our mixed economy—it’s too late, the pain is
already here. And if you’re looking for work in Las Vegas, then you’re already
scared. This Halloween, when you contemplate the future of employment in Las
Vegas, you should be afraid, very afraid.</div>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-91230087782401116372012-04-29T18:03:00.000-07:002012-04-30T00:16:34.488-07:00<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<span style="font-size: 18pt; line-height: 150%;"><strong>The History of Nullification: Origins, Context, and Dangers (Part One)</strong></span></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><strong>The Setting<o:p></o:p></strong></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
Ron Paul <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nxre2zZxJ8E"><span style="color: blue;">recently</span></a> stated that we
needed to "revisit" the long lost—and allegedly understood by the
Founders—principle of state nullification of Federal law. In so doing, he laid
just the latest foundation in a long line of statements, utterances and
arguments he has made over the years—in conjunction with a well known and
rather notorious coterie of intellectuals and historians—that clearly indicate
his card carrying status in the quixotic and dangerous push to have the
Confederate interpretation of American constitutional history revitalized.
Indeed, he is the most public face of a movement to have the Neo-Confederate
interpretation of American history mainstreamed. The principle problem with
this is that the Confederate interpretation of the Constitution was invented
due to the perceived necessity for some mechanism to defend one—and only one—institution:
chattel slavery.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
Ron Paul has laid out his agreement with this
"interpretation" of Lincoln and the Civil War <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DmhRBHZrKc&feature=related"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>,
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbOE4Ip7In0&feature=related"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>,
and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY&feature=related"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.
An interview with Thomas J. DiLorenzo, author of such popular books as “The
Real Lincoln,” and “Lincoln: Unmasked,” can be found <a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/DiLo"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>. Thomas Woods, Jr.'s <a href="http://www.tomwoods.com/about/"><span style="color: blue;">website</span></a> provides links to interviews,
and his magnum opus on the supposed right to nullification can be found <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Resist-Federal-Tyranny-Century/dp/B0057D8U2U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324542463&sr=8-1#_"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.
Watch Ralph Nader and Andrew Napolitano bash Lincoln <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwkG2C5sAc&feature=related"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.
Regnery has been doing a grave disservice to the dissemination of historical
information by publishing a pernicious series of books by the likes of
nullification propagandists <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-American-History/dp/0895260476/ref=pd_sim_b_3"><span style="color: blue;">Tom
Woods</span></a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/B005EP2EOQ/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b"><span style="color: blue;">Kevin
Gutzman</span></a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Civil-Guides/dp/1596985496/ref=pd_sim_b_7"><span style="color: blue;">H.W.
Crocker III</span></a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b"><span style="color: blue;">Clint
Johnson</span></a>, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Founding-Fathers-Guides/dp/1596980923/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c"><span style="color: blue;">Brion
McClanahan</span></a>. Clyde Wilson, another of these "revisionists," is so <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Dixie-Southern-History-Culture/dp/0962384224/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324543215&sr=1-5"><span style="color: blue;">obsessed</span></a>
with defending the old south and John C. Calhoun that he's actually wormed his
way into being the lead editor of Calhoun's papers. The Southern Poverty Law
Center has been doing yeomen service tracking this circle of intellectuals and
their write-up can be found <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/winter/the-ideologues?page=0,0"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
In what follows, I shall examine at some length the
history behind nullification as a doctrine elucidated in its full form in the
1830s by John C. Calhoun. The historical context for this intellectual
invention is long and somewhat complex, but I will explain it with as much
reference to actual documentation as possible in this not-book-length piece
from the launch of the Federal Government until the confrontation over
nullification at the end of Andrew Jackson’s first term of office as President.
This historical background is largely lost today, making it all too easy for
nullification peddlers to foist a dangerous and compromised doctrine that did
lead to disunion and civil war onto unsuspecting and generally well-meaning
defenders of true individual liberty. It is for them that I dedicate the
following.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><strong>The Old South Confronts a Problem<o:p></o:p></strong></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
When the government officially launched in 1789,
Southern representation in Congress—due in part to the three-fifths
apportionment granted for enslaved Africans—seemed to guarantee those states
where the institution was dominant an almost perfect equality in the House of
Representatives. Of course, it did not take terribly long to see, by
1810—certainly by 1820—that the states which abandoned slavery, located in the
North, were fast outpacing the slave states in population and economic
diversification. Even with the advantage of additional representation for
humans that were in many ways treated as anything but, Southern slave states
quickly lost any hope of controlling the House of Representatives. They quickly
lost any hope of even presenting an effectual block of any sort if the issue
before that body transcended partisan differences and became “geographical.” This
is why new state admission and the balance of the U.S. Senate quickly became
such a potentially dangerous topic and why, after the Missouri Compromises in
1819-1821, States came into the Union mostly in pairs, one slave and one free.
But the Missouri Compromise guaranteed—until the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo
ended the Mexican-American War with a large addition of land—that the future
for the Senate was largely going to replicate the House of Representatives’
past. More land above the parallel of 36° 30’ meant more free states which in
turn meant more Senators who had no particular stake in defending the “peculiar
institution” of the Southern states either politically or morally.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
To illustrate this briefly with numbers, in 1790,
48 of the 105 Representatives hailed from the states which would still maintain
slavery in 1860. That translates to 46% of the Representatives in 1790—and one
needs to keep in mind that big states with Slavery remained North of Maryland
in this early period, New York and New Jersey most prominently (slavery was not
officially ended in those states until 1841 and 1804 respectively—though most
slaves were freed in New York under a statute in 1817 that ended slavery by
birth). By 1860, only 85 of the 241 Representatives came from Slave states—or
35%. The number of Representatives in Congress from the States which ended up a
part of the rebellion was 61, or 25%. By contrast, the Senate had 32 Senators
in 1800—16 from the slave states and 16 from the free states. By the election
of 1860, there were 66 Senators—30 from the slave states and 36 from the free
states. The attrition rate in the Senate was much less (50% to 45%) than in the
House, but even in the bastion of state equality the slave states were finally
losing their grip on power. Those who had a grasp on the economic developments
in the country at large and the effects of slavery on the societies where it
took hold were able to foresee these developments. And, if they were wedded to
slavery as an institution either in theory and/or in practice, they were quick
to sound the alarm bells for their section of the Union. In some cases, they
were quick to offer possible “defensive” solutions that would assure that their
shrinking minority retained trump cards against potentially aggressive actions
by a Congress controlled entirely by non-slaveholding Senators and
Representatives.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
The man who personified this political and
intellectual “movement” in the Old South was—and for the most part still
is—John C. Calhoun (1782-1850) of South Carolina. Let there be no mistake,
while I and a great many of his contemporaries believe Calhoun to have been a
wild-eyed misguided fanatic who allowed himself to become so morally debased
that he seriously argued on the floor of the Senate that slavery, “instead of
an evil,” was “a good—a positive good,” there is still no doubt that his
intellectual energy commanded attention and is the only thing that accounts for
his continual office holding from 1811-1850.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
Unfortunately, after the Missouri Crisis, Calhoun increasingly applied his
intellectual gifts to the problem of creating a constitutional mechanism to
protect the slaveholders in the South against an already obvious decline in the
people’s House and a foreseeable decline in the Senate.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
The opportunity for this arrived in 1828 when,
during the scrambling and cantankerous election between incumbent John Quincy
Adams and the avenging victim of an alleged “corrupt bargain” Andrew Jackson,
the supporters of the latter passed a revision of the tariff that resulted in
an election year bag of protectionist goodies for the sectors of the electorate
where Jackson most needed votes—Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and the old
Northwestern states now tied to international trade through the Erie Canal. Of
course, this “tariff of abominations,” as free-traders came to call it, greatly
antagonized the sections of the country most dependent on open markets and
unrestrained commerce—the shipping portions of New England (Adams country) and
the agrarian South where Jackson had little to fear of a defection to the hated
man from Massachusetts. Jackson, of course, won the election and upon taking office
immediately began calling for Congressional reconsideration of tariff rates
downward to allay growing outrage.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
Calhoun, who was Vice-President under Adams only to
rather quickly join the opposition, remained Vice-President under Jackson and
immediately found himself in an intense battle of wills with Jackson over two
issues—one trivial, one not so trivial (though in Jackson’s mind, both were
indicative of Calhoun’s utter unfitness as a man and a public official). The
rather less serious issue involved the social ostracism of Peggy Eaton, the
Secretary of War’s wife, about whom there were whispers of infidelity to her
previous husband (the object of her illicit affections was her current husband,
John Eaton, the Secretary of War). Calhoun’s wife led many other women in the
upper crust of Washington society in shunning Peggy Eaton. Why does any of this
matter? Andrew Jackson liked John and Peggy Eaton. In fact, Jackson’s wife
Rachel, who died in the midst of the tumultuous and brutal 1828 election season,
had been similarly tarred with her husband as immoral for having lived together
openly as a couple before her first marriage was officially ended in legal
divorce. When both Rachel and Andrew had been notified (improperly as it turned
out) that the divorce was finalized, they were married—thus putting the future
President’s wife in the uncomfortable and unintentional role of bigamist. The
charge, long played out in Tennessee where Jackson had buried his “youthful
indiscretions” in glory, reappeared in 1828. Many have speculated then and
since that Jackson blamed the stress induced from this election year muckraking
for Rachel’s demise. So, when Mrs. Calhoun—and by extension her husband—took
the lead in blacklisting Peggy and John from social functions, Jackson made it
clear that he would have none of it and invited the two of them to all official
functions that he attended, thus letting the snobby holdouts exclude themselves
from official Washington.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
The more serious rupture involved Calhoun’s secret
and then quite open orchestration of South Carolina’s vociferous, heated, and
eventually warlike opposition to the Tariff of 1828. President Jackson also
publicly opposed the tariff but he simply asked Congress to revise it to be
less discriminatory and more in line with a simple revenue tariff of ad valorem
rates. Calhoun staked out much more radical ground. Rather than simply have
Congress lower the tariff rates, Calhoun argued, the whole concept of
protective tariff rates that favored one section of the Union over any other
was unconstitutional. Had that been the extent of Calhoun’s claims, the issue
might have offered the country an opportunity to discuss the Federal
Government’s legitimate scope in the regulation of foreign commerce, but
Calhoun went further than this, advocating a unique and potentially
catastrophic “constitutional” solution to the problem of unconstitutional laws
that managed to get by both Congress and the President.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><strong>The Origins<o:p></o:p></strong></i></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
Before moving onto what that solution was, we must
first step back three decades to the war crisis with France in the wake of the
publication of the diplomatic dispatches detailing what became known as the
“XYZ Affair.” Simply, the French Revolutionary government responded to John
Jay’s Treaty with Great Britain (ratified 1795) with outrage as a breach of
faith and repudiation of the treaty of alliance Louis XVI made with the
rebelling colonies in 1778. As the diplomatic crisis grew, American and French
ships in the contested Caribbean merchant lanes began engaging in isolated
skirmishes—which eventually erupted into a constrained but rather serious naval
war between the two republics in those seas. President Adams sent a bi-partisan
three-man team to Paris to try resolve the dispute and when they arrived they
were informed that in order to even speak to the French Foreign Minister they
would have to pay bribes to the three interlocutors they were forced to parley
with—the subsequently infamous “X, Y, and Z” (whose names were replaced with
the letters to avoid further embarrassments during ongoing negotiations). When
two of the American diplomats returned to inform President Adams privately that
the mission had failed and of the French outrage, Vice President Jefferson and
his Republican allies immediately began calling for a release of diplomatic
papers—they had become convinced that Adams and the Federalists were
maliciously encouraging unfounded war against the French as an excuse to stay
in power and were not making legitimate moves for peace.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
This demand was eventually acceded to and promptly
detonated in the hands of the Republicans. Revelation of the XYZ Affair enraged
public opinion against France and those who were seen as sympathetic to
France—namely, the Republicans. The wave of public opinion in 1798 emboldened
the Federalists—who generally struggled to maintain any sort of excited
national following in the wake of George Washington’s retirement—like nothing
ever had or would again. In response they increased the size of the army many
times over—bringing Washington out of retirement a final time as Commander-in-Chief
of the new force. They created a Department of the Navy and expanded the size
of the American fleet. And, of course, they passed a series of domestic laws
that would eventually bring them down and mire nearly all of them in historical
ignominy—the Alien and Sedition Acts. The former laws extended the period of
residence required for citizenship and allowed the President to unilaterally
arrest and expel Aliens he considered to be dangerous—this way largely aimed at
French refugees from the Revolution and the former French colony of St.
Domingue. The Sedition Act criminalized speech designed to bring the President,
the Government generally, or the officers of the executive branch into
disrepute and contempt (though the act famously allowed for truth as a defense,
this was hardly a comforting feature to most Republicans).</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
In response to these acts—the latter of which was
clearly at odds with the First Amendment—Vice President Jefferson and his
retired colleague James Madison penned draft resolutions for the Kentucky and
Virginia Legislatures. This is important to get correct now because the events
of 1798 later became critical for Calhoun’s entire theory of state
nullification and the subsequent Confederate theory of the constitution
propounded by Jefferson Davis and others. Neither the Kentucky nor Virginia
Legislatures “nullified” the Alien and Sedition Acts—nor did either of the
respective resolutions of those Legislatures call upon the other states to
“nullify” those laws. What, then, did they say and call for?</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
First of all, let us remember the context here. In
the midst of a war buildup—not a war as yet, though naval engagements were
occurring in the Caribbean—the party that controlled Congress and the
Presidency had passed legislation that targeted not only aliens from enemy
countries—i.e. those from countries with whom the United States were formally
at war—but aliens from friendly countries as well (many Irish and French
immigrants quickly joined the Republicans—so many assumed that the bill had
more to do with partisan advantage than war preparation). In addition, the
Federalists had passed a law that seemed to directly attack an individual right
which the Constitution itself explicitly stated was beyond the power of
Congress. While a very small number of blustering Republican editors were
prosecuted under the Sedition Act and sentenced to jail time but these were
important opposition editors and it had an inevitable chilling effect on political
writing.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
Jefferson put the problem to Madison this way on 7 June 1798: “They have
brought into the lower house a sedition bill, which among other enormities,
undertakes to make printing certain matters criminal, tho’ one of the
amendments to the constitution has so expressly taken religion, printing
presses &c. out of their coercion. Indeed this bill and the Alien bill both
are so palpably in the teeth of the constitution as to shew they mean to pay no
respect to it.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
The Republicans, under the House leadership of
Albert Gallatin, had put up a stout defense but were simply outvoted. As
Jefferson, the Vice-President at the time, and James Madison, retired to his
Montpelier estate, contemplated a scene where journalistic opposition was
liable to earn one a prosecution they contemplated an alternative strategy—one
that might be more effective that a campaign in the press. Simply, they drafted
a set of resolutions to be presented in the legislatures of the States of
Kentucky (Jefferson) and Virginia (Madison) which made the case that the Alien
and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and that other states should join in
denouncing them as such ahead of the next elections. From the Virginia
Resolutions, one can see the power of this indictment: “the other of which
acts, exercises in like manner a power not delegated by the constitution, but
on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments
thereto; a power which more than any other ought to produce universal alarm,
because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters
and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has
ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
Now the truly controversial portion of these resolutions came from two sources;
first in their characterization of the origins of the Union and, second, their
recommendations to the other states.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
The chief problem, historically for Madison in the
1830s anyway, was Jefferson’s draft of the Kentucky Resolutions—they were
subsequently modified and toned done by the Kentucky legislature before
passage. Subsequent followers of the “Principle of ‘98” would take their
direction from Jefferson’s more strident document. Jefferson—a man not present
for either the drafting or the debate over the Constitution, and who as late as
21 March 1798 still believed that that document required a two-thirds majority
for declarations of war—declared that: “the several States composing the United
States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to
their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a
Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted
a General Government fro special purposes,--delegated to that government
certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of
right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government
assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no
force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral
party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the
government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of
the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its
discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as
in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party
has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode
and measure of redress.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
As if this statement has not gone far enough,
Jefferson elaborated further: “that is cases of an abuse of the delegated
powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a
change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, were powers are
assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the
rightful remedy [this portion was excised by the Kentucky legislature]: that
every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non
fœderis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others
within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion,
absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for
them.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
Madison’s much more circumspect appeal, adopted by
the Virginia legislature on 21 December 1798, had characterized the Union and
the nature of the remedy proposed this way: “That this Assembly doth explicitly
and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government,
as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties; as limited by
the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as
no farther valid than they are authorised by the grants enumerated in that
compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of
other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties
thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the
progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the
authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.” Furthermore, Madison
wrote: “That the good people of this Commonwealth having ever felt and
continuing to feel the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other
states, the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all,
and the most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution which is the pledge of
mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness, the General Assembly
doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in
confidence that they will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it
does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the
necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for cooperating with this
State in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties,
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
And so the resolutions went out to the other
states. The replies of the other legislatures (10 out of 14 responded), in the
words of historian Lance Banning, “in every case condemn[ed] state interference
in the federal sphere,” a reaction that would be repeated during the
nullification crisis. New Hampshire’s response (and all the responses ran in a
similar vein) stated bluntly: “That the state legislatures are not the proper
tribunals to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the general
government; that the duty of such decision is properly and exclusively confided
to the judicial department. That if the legislature of New Hampshire, for mere
speculative purposes, were to express an opinion on the acts of the general
government commonly called “the Alien and Sedition Bills,” that opinion would
unreservedly be that those acts are constitutional and, in the present critical
situation of our country, highly expedient. That the constitutionalist and
expediency of the acts aforesaid have been very ably advocated and clearly
demonstrated by many citizens of the United States, more especially by the
minority of the General Assembly of Virginia. The legislature of New Hampshire,
therefore, deem it unnecessary, by any train of arguments, to attempt further
illustration of the propositions, the truth of which, it is confidently
believed, at this day, is very generally seen and acknowledged.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
Madison was playing damage control almost from the
beginning—the resolutions put the opposition to John Adams in a poor, almost
treasonous, light in the midst of a national war-time crisis. With the
overwhelming condemnation from the other states, Madison (now back in the
Virginia Legislature) chaired a committee of reply where he drafted his forever
famous “Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts,” where he dialed back the
implications of the resolutions by elaborating at some length precisely what
had been meant by words like “interpose” and “the compact to which the states
are parties.” In terms of the latter, Madison quickly retreated firmly
into the embrace of the understanding the Federalists had settled upon during
the ratification debates, that the ratification of the Constitution had been
the act of “the people composing those political societies [the States], in
their highest sovereign capacity.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
The Constitution gained its power, not as a league of states—that had been the
nature of the Government under the Articles of Confederation Madison had worked
so hard to destroy—but from a more fundamental source, the only source of
sovereign power: “the true character in which it issued from the sovereign
authority of the people.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
Furthermore, Madison delineated the line of authority by which all the American
governments were established and, ultimately, ruled: “The authority of
constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over
constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind;
and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 150%;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
As for what the Virginia
legislature meant by its ability to “to interpose for arresting the progress of
the evil,” Madison insisted that the entire point of the efforts in Kentucky
and Virginia was for alerting the people to what had happened in Congress so
that they might respond constitutionally, i.e. through elections. The lion’s
share of the criticism revolved around the perceived usurpation of Virginia and
Kentucky of a role that had already been understood to belong to the Supreme
Court of the United States, namely decided the constitutional fidelity of
federal laws. In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Federalist</i> No. 80,
Hamilton had already explained this role in some detail, writing: “Thirteen
independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the
same laws, is a hydra in government from which nothing but contradiction and
confusion can proceed.” The reason to appoint one body—constitutionally the
weakest and most passive—as the final arbiter of constitutional disputes was
obvious and deadly serious. Hamilton appealed to the familiar history of
Pufendorf for an illustration of the practical results of having as many
arbiters as there were states: “History gives us a horrid picture of the
dissensions and private wars which distracted and desolated Germany prior to
the institution of the <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">imperial chamber</span>
by Maximilian towards the close of the fifteenth century, and informs us, at
the same time, of the vast influence of that institution in appeasing the
disorders and establishing the tranquility of the empire. This was a court
invested with authority to decide finally all differences among the members of
the Germanic body.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Madison retreated here as well,
simply stating that a “declaration that proceedings of the Federal Government
are not warranted by the constitution, is a novelty neither among the citizens
nor among the legislatures of the states; nor are the citizens or the
legislature of Virginia, singular in the example of it.” These legislative
opinions were, Madison maintained: “unaccompanied with any other effect, than
what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
Madison, in his “celebrated report,” never—not once—attempted to explain,
invoke, or defend any alleged right of a state to “nullify” a federal law that
was constitutionally enacted (as the Alien and Sedition Acts were, even if both
or either were themselves unconstitutional, though the offending laws expired
without ever being declared so by the courts).</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><strong>The Interlude, Part One:
Jeffersonians in Power<o:p></o:p></strong></i></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Adams and his divided Federalist
cohorts were booted from the Presidency and the Congressional majority in what
Jefferson later described as the “Revolution of 1800.” Now that they were the
governing party, the Jeffersonian Republicans quickly set about transforming
the goals and priorities of the government. The most important reform of Jefferson’s
first term and a half was the dismantling of the Federalist war program from
the expansion of the Army and Navy to the elimination of the direct taxes the
Federalists had imposed to pay for them. But no matter how much any early
American statesman tried to run away from war in the early decades of the
government’s operations, they all realized sooner or later that they inhabited
a world at war whose affairs were well beyond their ability to control.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In the summer of 1807, a British
warship fired upon an American naval frigate just outside the Chesapeake Bay.
When the American ship surrendered, the British boarded and impressed several
seamen whom they claimed were deserters from the Royal Navy. The news was
electric, calls for was immediate and universal. Jefferson and his cabinet were
well aware of the dangers of going to war, completely unprepared, with the
world’s foremost naval power. In addition to that obvious concern, Jefferson
and Madison had long been devoted to the idea that Americans held true power in
their commercial ties with the British—the United States was one of Britain’s
biggest markets for manufactured goods—and that if the British were made to
feel the economic pain of losing those ties, they would quickly succumb to
American demands. The fact that American demands simply consisted of not
boarding and impressing men from American vessels and keeping clear of free
trade in non-contraband goods made Jefferson and Madison sure that the
international community and the British people (particularly in the Midlands,
Britain’s great manufacturing region) would soon see the folly of Whitehall’s
actions.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
This is what led to the imposition
of the famous Embargo of 1807 (though it went into effect in 1808 and expired
in March 1809), a scheme of impounding all outgoing American merchant trade
both in ports and overland into British Canada. The resistance to this measure,
and the subsequent enforcement acts passed in 1808 was intense, particularly in
New England. Albert Gallatin, the President’s Treasury Secretary, who was
largely in charge of carrying out these laws, told Jefferson: “I also think
that an embargo for a limited time will at this moment be preferable in itself,
and less objectionable in Congress. In every point of view, privations, sufferings,
revenue, effect on the enemy, politics at home, &c., I prefer war to a
permanent embargo.... Governmental prohibitions do always more mischief than
had been calculated; and it is not without much hesitation that a statesman
should hazard to regulate the concerns of individuals as if he could do it
better than themselves.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
Jefferson, determined to avoid war almost at any price, and frustrated to the
point of mental collapse by the successful evasion of the embargo laws in the
Northeast—a back and forth between smugglers and Treasury officials that
eventually led to jury nullifications and the executive declaration of the
collapse of civil law along with the authorization of congress to enforce the
laws with the Army and Navy of the United States—eventually declared: “I do not
wish a single citizen to be deprived of a meal of bread...but I set down the
exercise of commerce, merely for profit, as nothing when it carries with it the
danger of defeating the objects of the embargo.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
The administration, it ought to be noted, was bolstered in its efforts by a
Federalist judge in Massachusetts who upheld the constitutionality of the
embargo under Federalist legal challenge from New Englanders.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The embargo collapsed, however, due
to Republicans withering under the political pressure from their constituents
and the lack of results in the position of Great Britain after a year of the
experiment. Eventually, of course, the attempt to remain neutral during the
later phases of the Napoleonic Wars failed, and while the United States had
ample reasons for war with both Britain and France, it was only Great Britain
that had an active capability of disrupting American trade internationally and
only Great Britain that had a proclivity for snatching naturalized and native
born Americans off of American ships for the depleted crews of the Royal Navy’s
1000 ships. Up to 6,000 Americans had been abducted during the resumption of
war in Europe in 1803 until the declaration of war against Britain in 1812.
During that war, when New England states—not just disgruntled majorities of the
people within those states—attempting to thwart constitutionally enacted
federal war measures, Jefferson of all people was among those encouraging his
successor James Madison that what was needed was: “A barrel of tar to each
state South of the Potomac will keep all in order, and that will be freely
contributed without troubling government. To the North they will give you more
trouble. You may there have to apply the rougher drastics of Govr. Wright, hemp
and confiscation.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></a>
This latter part was, of course, a reference to the actions of the Maryland militia
against Loyalists during the revolutionary war—including hanging and property
expropriation. Fortunately, Madison ignored these missives from Jefferson and
others, instead relying mostly on public opinion and time to undermine the
resistance to the war. But when Federalists convened a regional convention in
Hartford, Connecticut at the end of 1814, Madison did not hesitate to transfer
all manner of military units from the Canadian frontier to positions in and
around New England to wipe out any secessionary movement that might appear.</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
That such a movement did not appear
should not blind us to the fact that except for one intemperate document
written in the midst of a war crisis and Federal suppression of the free press,
Jefferson and Madison had done everything consistent with those who believed in
Federal supremacy and emphatically accepted Jefferson’s dismissal of secession:
“Be this as it may, in every free & deliberating society there must, from
the nature of man, be opposite parties & violent dissensions &
discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other for
a longer or shorter time. Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce
each to watch & delate to the people the proceedings of the other. But if
on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a
scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If to rid
ourselves of the present rule of Massachusetts & Connecticut we break the
Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the N. England States alone cut off,
will our natures be changed? are we not men still to the south of that, &
with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania & a
Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be
distracted with the same party spirit. What a game, too, will the one party
have in their hands by eternally threatening the other that unless they do so
& so, they will join their Northern neighbors. If we reduce our Union to
Virginia & N. Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established
between the representatives of these two States, and they will end by breaking
into their simple units. Seeing, therefore, that an association of men who will
not quarrel with one another is a thing which never yet existed, from the
greatest confederacy of nations down to a town meeting or a vestry, seeing that
we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England
associates for that purpose than to see our bickerings transferred to
others.... A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over,
their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore
their government to it’s true principles. It is true that in the mean time we
are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war & long
oppressions of enormous public debt. But who can say what would be the evils of
a scission, and when & where they would end? Better keep together as we
are, hawl off from Europe as soon as we can, & from all attachments to any
portions of it.”<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></a></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;">
<br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> John C.
Calhoun, “Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions, Delivered in the
Senate, February 6<sup>th</sup>, 1837,” in Paul Finkelman, ed., <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Defending Slavery: Proslavery Thought in the
Old South, A Brief History with Documents</i></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s,
2003), 59.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Geoffrey
R. Stone, War and Liberty: An American Dilemma: 1790 to the Present (New York:
W.W. Norton, 2007), 7-18.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Thomas
Jefferson to James Madison, Philadelphia, 7 June 1798, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Papers of James Madison</i>, Vol. XII, eds. David B. Mattern,
J.C.A. Stagg, et al (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991), 143.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Virginia
Resolutions Against the Alien and Sedition Acts, 21 December 1798, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">James Madison: Writings</i>, ed. Jack N.
Rakove (New York: Liberty Fund, 1999), 590.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Draft of
the Kentucky Resolutions, October 1798, Thomas Jefferson: Writings, ed. Merrill
D. Peterson (New York: Library of America, 1984), 449.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
453.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[7]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Virginia
Resolutions, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Madison: Writings</i>,
589-591.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> New
Hampshire Resolutions of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 15 June 1799, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Liberty and Order: The First American Party
Struggle</i>, ed. Lance Banning (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004), 237-238.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Report
on the Alien and Sedition Acts, 7 January 1800, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Madison: Writings</i>, 610.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
632.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid,
614.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Federalist Papers</i>, ed. Isaac Kramnick (New York: Penguin,
1987), 446-447.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Report
on the Alien and Sedition Acts, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Madison:
Writings</i>, 659.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Albert
Gallatin to Thomas Jefferson, Treasury Department, 18 December 1807, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Writings of Albert Gallatin</i>, Vol. I,
ed. Henry Adams (New York: Antiquarian Press, 1960 [reprint]), 368.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">
Jefferson quoted in Merrill D. Peterson, Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation: A
Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 889-890.</span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[16]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Thomas
Jefferson to James Madison, Monticello, 29 June 1812, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison 1776-1826</i>, Vol. III, ed. James Morton Smith (New York:
W.W. Norton, 1995), 1699. </span></div>
</div>
<div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;">
<div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="color: blue;">[17]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Thomas
Jefferson to John Taylor, Philadelphia, 4 June 1798, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Jefferson: Writings</i>, 1049-1050.</span></div>
</div>
</div>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-56325685179578216502012-01-18T22:43:00.000-08:002012-01-19T00:12:26.524-08:00<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Reading List for Those Wishing to Counter the Non-Historical Propagandistic Ramblings of Tom Woods, Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Kevin Gutzman, et al.</strong></span><br />
<br />
<br />
The deceptive fraud that is the neo-Confederate school of American history and its radical "Libertarian" ugly brother begins with the American Revolution and culminates largely with radical Reconstruction in the 1870s. After that both schools simply break down and glom onto the general critique Austrian economists and classical liberals of all sorts have of the New Deal and the 1930s revolution that transformed the political economy of the United States.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In terms of the Revolution, this bizarre sub-culture of historians attempts to recast the tale in a couple of ways. First, the Revolution merely becomes a conservative secessionary movement from the British Empire (and thus a precursor to the attempted secession of the Southern states in 1861). This interpretation actually has a long and unrelated pedigree amongst certain European liberals and American conservatives stretching back to Friedrich Von Gentz's 1790's treatise "The Origin and Principles of the American Revolution Compared with the Origin and Principles of the French Revolution," translated into English for American audiences in 1800 by John Quincy Adams. But for the likes of DiLorenzo & co. the secession argument about the revolution and the concurrent State origin of the Union myth that goes with it are mere foundational work for the sleight of hand that occurs later in the story. For an excellent tutorial on the actual radicalism of the American Revolution, the works of Gordon S. Wood are generally an excellent place to begin. Readable, they offer the general consensus of the majority of American historians about the importance of ideas to the Revolution and its many demonstrable impacts on all of American society. Wood is also perhaps one of the most well versed people alive in the available primary source materials of the period, so his evidentiary base is always rich and meticulously detailed. This is always hilariously lacking amongst the neo-confederate historians and their various intellectual allies among more mainstream conservatives and libertarian writers and historians. This should not be taken as a blanket endorsement of everything Gordon Wood has argued or written, I have some serious disagreements with his underlying theory of history as well as his lifelong attempt to save a modified form of the old Beardist school of economic determinism (but Wood is at least upfront and honest in this, neo-confederates repeat Beard's theory of the civil war without even giving the dead man credit).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<script charset="utf-8" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822/US/alexandmarrio-20/8001/4bfab5ff-1aa4-4139-be4a-381a897e19df" type="text/javascript">
</script> <noscript><A HREF="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Falexandmarrio-20%2F8001%2F4bfab5ff-1aa4-4139-be4a-381a897e19df&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></noscript><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Next in line is the Constitution. Here there are some disagreements among this small group of pseudo-historians with one group, mostly the neo-Confederates, misconstruing the Constitution as some manner of State created League and then fetishizing it--much in the manner the actual Confederates did--for more on this see Jefferson Davis's opening volume of "The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government." Radical libertarians, on the other hand, view the Constitution as a big government assault on the spirit and legacy of the American Revolution foisted upon the people by a cabal of reactionaries--Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Wilson, et al.--and destroying the truly libertarian and successful Articles of Confederation. This view, of course, also goes back to the very events themselves. Anti-Federalists would have recognized and partially endorsed this view--though they may have been puzzled by the modern libertarian forgetfulness of just how arbitrary and tyrannical the individual state governments could be and sometimes were. The Constitution is best understood, in the words of perhaps the greatest historian on the period in the 20th century Bernard Bailyn, as the fulfillment of the revolution's hopes and promises. But for an excellent tour through the best scholarship on the matter, see the books below, all of which have some flaws, but all of which are very readable and closer to being accurate than anything found in the hackneyed screeds of Gutzman, Woods, and others.<br />
<br />
<br />
<SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822/US/alexandmarrio-20/8001/8ee80903-f41a-44f4-8416-4c8da3bbb743"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Falexandmarrio-20%2F8001%2F8ee80903-f41a-44f4-8416-4c8da3bbb743&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Now the 1790s, when the new government had to be run and operated. Think on it a moment. The first national republic of any size in the history of the world since Rome, cast adrift in a sea of monsters, bordering two--possibly three--foreign empires that had designs on the American continent and surrounded by hostile tribes of Indians who could quickly become auxiliaries in a foreign war against a republic that also housed an unstable and dangerous population of human slaves that might also rebel at any moment. It was a historically unprecedented and potentially quite dangerous moment and everyone knew it. What they didn't know--and had limited control over--was how to deal with the world's problems, internal finance, debt retirement, and diplomacy dominated by overbearing mercantilists. The neo-Confederates frame the whole period as Jefferson later would: as America's first brush with centralism where the country was saved by a Jeffersonian return to State supremacy and decentralization. The story is actually, however, far more intriguing and complicated. Jefferson's call for State importance fell entirely on deaf, if not enraged, ears. Even he balked at the notion of the secession in the tumultuous and, in his eyes, dangerous 1798-1799 period. Few decades in American history are as important as the 1790s, so a true and full picture of them is important. The following books get one started in that direction.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822/US/alexandmarrio-20/8001/3a892287-0bc1-4c6d-9446-96139fa7b9be"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Falexandmarrio-20%2F8001%2F3a892287-0bc1-4c6d-9446-96139fa7b9be&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The next way-station on the way to turning the Confederacy into a noble last chance for liberty in America is, typically, the fight over nullification. The curious thing about this is that these historians simply treat nullification as a fait accompli cooked into the system from the beginning and not a provocative invention of the moment by the most provocatively dangerous mind of the period, John C. Calhoun. The bizarre thing about this is that few controversies have as many wonderful monographs devoted to them as the nullification controversy. Some of them are below, but the truly outstanding accounts are William Freehling "Prelude to Civil War," Richard Ellis "The Union at Risk," and Drew R. McCoy "The Last of the Fathers."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822/US/alexandmarrio-20/8001/247968d1-661f-41eb-baf5-a449cd99efb0"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Falexandmarrio-20%2F8001%2F247968d1-661f-41eb-baf5-a449cd99efb0&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Next is the run up to the Civil War at the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848 until the shots fired at Fort Sumter in 1861. Here the neo-confederate and radical libertarian historians tend to see the North confirming the later doctrines of the south--nullifying the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 for instance (though they don't see the South similarly confirming the "later" doctrines of the North, arguing for Federal supremacy and military enforcement of the laws on reluctant Northern states)--while also building up the climactic narrative of an unchecked Lincoln running roughshod over the Constitution and the rights of the people (or, curiously in this interpretation, the States, which are apparently endowed by something with penultimate "rights"). The actual story is quite a bit different, which is to say familiar and obvious. But neo-confederates and radical libertarians let the facts be damned if they're presented by politically left of center historians, so go figure. The literature here is vast, but below is the best of the best.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<SCRIPT charset="utf-8" type="text/javascript" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822/US/alexandmarrio-20/8001/18683f3c-e2a0-42b8-8fbb-434d64ac0637"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT><A HREF="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?rt=tf_mfw&ServiceVersion=20070822&MarketPlace=US&ID=V20070822%2FUS%2Falexandmarrio-20%2F8001%2F18683f3c-e2a0-42b8-8fbb-434d64ac0637&Operation=NoScript">Amazon.com Widgets</A></NOSCRIPT><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
As always, try to read as much of the primary source material as you can and use the secondary literature as much as reference tool as possible. This is generally what real professional historians aim at—there are exceptions of course for excellent historical writers—and it’s not really all that difficult. It takes application and effort and, of course, curiosity.<o:p></o:p>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-71736205992813495122012-01-11T23:42:00.000-08:002012-01-14T23:44:16.355-08:00<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: large;">On Juries<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: large;">An Essay, By Alexander Marriott<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is doubtless, if it com to force, that a less number compell a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, thir libertie, then that a greater number for the pleasure of thir baseness, compell a less most injuriously to be thir fellow slaves. – John Milton, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Readie and Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth </i>(1660)<o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Before diving into the issue this essay means to examine—jury service in a free state—some background is, at least briefly, appropriate. Dr. Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand’s intellectual heir and an eminent philosopher in his own right, hosts a weekly Q&A podcast. In this podcast, he fields questions from philosophical novices, young people, and otherwise intellectually curious individuals. On July 19, 2010, he answered the following question: “Should jury duty be compulsory as it is in the U.S. today?” His answer—which along with a number of other source materials is appended below after the end of this essay—was, in essence: Sure, so long as a number of conditions are met. The condition of greatest import for Dr. Peikoff was that if a jury system was decided to be essential for the effectual running of the criminal justice system (a question upon which he was agnostic)—which is a critical and essential reason for even having a government—then it was fine to issue a writ to summon a jury to judge the facts of a criminal or civil case. Further, he stated that if one established such a government, or chose to live within it’s jurisdiction—and let us be clear, there is no legal restriction to leaving the United States (except, of course, in the legal jurisdictions of certain other states)—then that implied an acquiescence “to contribute.”</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Dr. Diana Hsieh, an Objectivist philosopher and Professor from Boulder, Colorado, who hosts her own internet podcast, NoodleCast, responded to Dr. Peikoff on May 19, 2011. Simply put, Dr. Hsieh’s position was that: “compulsory jury duty is just as much a violation of individual rights as is compulsory taxation or the draft. I think it’s morally wrong and I think that it’s impractical too.” Furthermore, she framed the issue as one of the initiation of force against an innocent citizen:</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The fact that something is necessary for government never justifies the government initiating force to make that something happen. In a free society, force can not be initiated, ever—never never never. Even if it’s necessary—even if it’s “necessary”—that the government have this money, or have these people, in order to serve its functions. Force is only justified in retaliation—meaning against criminals, against invaders, and so on. And so, and the fact is, that the people who don’t want to drop everything in their lives and serve on some jury because a bureaucrat has called them up, that is not initiating force against anybody.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Her lengthy rebuttal also offered a number of alternative hypothetical scenarios by which a voluntary jury system might work. But, after asserting that there was really no reason to worry that there would not be enough volunteers for juries, she decided to address the question of what would happen if there simply were not enough volunteers: “What actually happens? Well you know what happens? The criminals go free. Conflicts don’t get resolved. And if that’s not incentive enough for people to serve on a jury—that plus the pay and experience and so on—then I think a free country doesn’t deserve to stay free. And that’s exactly the same as with the military—if people are unwilling to defend their country by taking up arms against an invader then conquest is the result that those people deserve.” Dr. Peikoff also suggested that the power to issue subpoenas was a critical pillar in a criminal justice system. Dr. Hsieh agreed and in the process summed up the nature of her objection to the act of summoning a jury with a judicial writ: “Subpoenas are not like jury duty, military service, and taxation. I think all those three things are the same, subpoenas are something different.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">In certain ways I think both Drs. Peikoff and Hsieh are correct and incorrect, though in disparate proportions. Dr. Peikoff could hardly be expected to give a very rousing defense of impaneling juries while being agnostic to the point of skepticism on trials by jury—and thus he does not. In fact, he indicated his fundamental disinterest in dealing with the question in anything resembling a complete fashion at the end of his answer: “I mean, the way we stand today, it’s a question of will the United States survive for a little while. So the question of how would juries operate in utopia? ha! I just hope people listening to me live long enough for it to come up.” That sort of prioritization is fine so far as it goes—but he could answer every question given to him in that manner if he wanted to, since they are almost all less important than the imminent demise of the Republic. Dr. Hsieh was certainly correct to actually try to delve into the principles behind juries and the process by which they are impaneled, but she erred grievously on several fronts in the attempt. First of all, comparing receipt of a writ to appear at a court to sit on a jury is not comparable to being conscripted into an army and sent off to die, nor is it in any way the same as having a tax collector continuously picking your pocket all year long and tossing you in jail for failing to help him out. The differences are quite obvious. Sitting on a jury is not deadly and while one could point to opportunity costs associated with the time spent waiting around to sit on a jury and the actual trial itself—this is a species of confusing public and private life, which I will come to later—sitting on a jury <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i> compensated. On top of that—taxation actually physically removes money from your possession—serving on a jury may not compare to private sector work, but sitting on a jury is remunerated work.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Fundamentally, neither Dr. Peikoff nor Dr. Hsieh spent any time analyzing what, precisely, a jury is (Dr. Hsieh touched on this ever so briefly, but only in a minor digression), why we have them in the United States, or why writs are issued to impanel them as opposed to say, calling for volunteers. It strikes me as problematic to take on an institution of the greatest possible magnitude—the trial by jury—which has been fought for and bled for since Magna Carta and beyond, without at least nodding to the reasons why random writs were eventually settled on as the most equitable and logical way of assembling a jury.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span lang="EN" style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> Eight or more centuries does not, by itself, make any practice or institution sacrosanct or unassailable (Spartans tossed infants into a chasm for almost as long, for instance), but I would expect that this particular institution, which every hero of liberty from Hampden and Sidney to Locke and Shaftesbury, and from Adams and Jefferson to Madison and Marshall exalted (all knowing full well that juries were summoned through the issuance of writs from a court), would receive at least some cursory examination. At the very least simply to know how and why so many who understood so well the nature of rights and government, force and law, could have overlooked this supposed assault on fundamental unalienable rights like life and liberty. In what follows, I will examine the precise reasons why the Founders of the Republic were so concerned about trial by jury and offer some of their rationale for why juries should be assembled by use of judicial writ. Though in all frankness, they did not approach the matter as one of an initiation of force. The jury was a bulwark of liberty and everyone was committed to its preservation. As I intend to show, as a political institution, you could not, in theory, be compelled to “serve” on a jury anymore than you could be compelled to be a citizen. If you were the one, you were the other. I will then more systematically analyze and critique the answers of Dr. Peikoff, and particularly Dr. Hsieh. Condemning a country so free that it touches its citizens so little even in the grips of conquest to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">deserved</i> destruction—as she does—is the sort of fodder philosophers like Sir Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes used to point to as prima facie evidence of the perpetual inability of men to live in freedom and govern themselves. If that is the Objectivist answer to the question “What if people don’t volunteer in sufficient numbers to staff the juries?” then no statesmen or person who lives among other men—men who are sometimes not rational or only partly so—will see much applicable value in it as a philosophy capable of dealing with the predictable problems of governance, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">particularly self-governance</i>. That is, the issues surrounding the protection of the individual rights of victims and the accused in the criminal and civil justice systems. Finally, I will briefly examine what, precisely, Ayn Rand had to say, or not to say, on the subject of sitting on juries through summons, and what Objectivism offers (or does not) on the matter beyond the defense and arguments provided by William Blackstone, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton, among others.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">PART I<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The precise origins of the English—and by extension, the American jury—is murky and uncertain. While juries existed in Ancient Greece—Athens most famously—and under the Romans for certain purposes, the American conception of the jury is surely drawn from the time immemorial experience of feudal England. For much of its early known history up to the reigns of the last Tudor monarchs, the trial by jury was literally meant to protect peers—that is, Lords, Barons, Earls, Dukes and the like, from unjust persecution by the Monarch. Ecclesiastical courts in England functioned along a separate line of jurisprudence and, after Henry VIII’s reformation, the Crown took over this alternative judicial system as well. Under Henry VIII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, and the Stuart monarchs James I and Charles I, these courts were used to liquidate political enemies—all without juries, or through a frontal assault on the integrity of juries.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> For instance, when there were juries, they were made up only of those belonging to the official church of State—Catholic under Mary, Anglican under the others. Enemies of the wrong religion could expect little sympathy from a jury of their theological enemies in a period when they were garroting and burning each other at the stake. In addition to that, prominent enemies who could successfully gain a true jury of their peers were untouchable in effect—that is, until the accession of Henry Tudor (Henry VII) after the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485) and the subsequent establishment of the Star Chamber. In this special court there was no jury—you were judged by the King’s privy counselors. It was the flagrant abuse of this court that, among other reasons, eventually led to the English Civil Wars and the establishment of the English Republic in the mid-seventeenth century.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">When the restored Stuart monarchs overstayed their welcome after the Restoration (1660) and were deposed by Parliament in 1688, a Bill of Rights was adopted. Among the “rights” Parliament laid out were: “<span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">That the pretended power of dispensing with the laws, or the execution of law by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;” and, “That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious.”</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The watching colonists across the Atlantic waged their own miniature versions of this “Glorious Revolution,” particularly in New England where the colonial charters had been destroyed by James II and a military governor imposed. In 1689, when news arrived from England that James had fled at the advance of William of Orange (William III), the colonists deposed the governor and sent him to England in chains.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Of course, the colonists basked in the Glorious Revolution just as their allies in England did. The right of trial by jury was held as a fundamentally important right that the chaotic 17<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century had finally ended by securing, once and for all—or so everyone thought. Unfortunately, while the colonists assumed this applied to all Englishmen at home or abroad, those living in England gradually developed a quite different understanding of the legal rights pertaining to Englishmen in England and those living in the colonies. During the Stamp Act crisis in 1765, the colonists declared what they assumed were their rights as Englishmen. Among them were jury trials, as they proclaimed: “That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.”</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">As the Revolutionary crisis mounted between 1765 and 1775, the infractions on this “invaluable right” also mounted—most notably with the imposition of vice-admiralty jurisdiction on the colonies. In effect, because the Royal authorities lost confidence in colonial juries to find verdicts corresponding to the law—for instance a jury would not convict those responsible for tarring and feathering a tax collector trying to enforce the Tea Act, or anyone responsible for the Boston Tea Party—they transferred all cases to vice-admiralty courts in Halifax, away from a revolutionary jury pool. We see this in the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence: “He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts or pretended Legislation: ... For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offenses.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Nearly all State Constitutions adopted after the Continental Congress called on the States to draft them contained clauses guaranteeing the right of trial by jury. During the debate surrounding the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787-1789, statements similar to this were common among both Federalists and Anti-Federalists: “It is essential in every free country, that common people should have a part and share of influence, in the judicial as well as in the legislative department.”</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> Of course, this ubiquitous sentiment led to the adoption of the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution in 1791. But the most expansive and striking argument made for the institutional importance of the jury was made by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Abbé Arnoux. “We think in America that it is necessary to introduce the people into every department of government as far as they are capable of exercising it;” Jefferson told his French correspondent, “and that this is the only to ensure a long-continued and honest administration of it’s powers.” But Jefferson went even further in stating the overwhelming importance of the American institutional arrangements involved in the trial by jury. Read his language here closely, particularly the second half, to fully appreciate the fundamental and foundational importance the people who survived the 1760s and 1770s gave to juries:<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">It is left therefore to juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any biass whatever in any cause, to take upon themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty. Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the Legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making them. However it is best to have the people in all the three departments where that is possible.</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><o:p></o:p></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Why this primacy? Quite simply it was the complete breakdown of law enforcement through jury nullifications that stymied British attempts to enforce their trade regulations and taxes. When pushed in this way, the King’s Ministers had to choose between military repression or legal accommodation and concession; they chose the former and the Revolution came.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">So, a person concerned with liberty might say, this is all well and good for the importance of jury trials, but why the compulsion? Doesn’t issuing a writ to summon a jury violate a person’s individual rights to his own body? These are important questions because they are indicative of a fundamental misconception of what a jury is exactly and what is going on when a court issues a writ to summon a jury. For the clearest and best exposition of precisely what is going on when a jury trial occurs one must turn to William Blackstone, the greatest 18<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century English legal commentator and the primary source for all American legal training for the several generations from 1770 through the antebellum period. Before delving into Blackstone’s explanation of the jury trial and why a summons had developed to impanel the jury, let us indulge in a digression to review some fundamental points about the legal system.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">When a crime is committed, the legal system swings into operation to investigate the alleged crime, collect evidence, issue an indictment against the supposed criminal, arrest said person, and then subject the evidence to a trial. In a free society, the defendant is presumed innocent until a full hearing is given—in public (Star Chamber was never public, for instance)—to all the relevant evidence, and the defense has a chance to confront the prosecution’s witnesses in open court. At the beginning of the trial, the burden of proof is—logically and in conformity to justice—on the side asserting something; that is, the prosecution. It can only shift once the prosecution presents what appears to be a credible case that establishes that the accused committed the alleged crime. (Not all free societies have had trial by jury, but since ours does, the following explication relates to a society which subjects facts in trial to the judgment of a jury.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The court has, at least, the following officers and people in it during a trial: 1) the Judge(s), appointed by the local, state, or national executive—possibly confirmed by a portion or the whole of a corresponding legislature. They can also be appointed by a special council or committee designated for selecting Judges (as in the state of New York), or in some cases directly elected by the local population; 2) the Prosecutor, another public official appointed or elected depending on the jurisdiction; 3) the Defendant, as trials in absentia are highly unusual and occur only when the accused flees to (or is already in) an outside jurisdiction from which extradition is not possible; 4) the Jury, made up of impartial people unfamiliar with the particulars of the case and unknown to the defendant, the prosecutor, and the judge, who are selected from a larger pool of people after each side of the case sifts through the candidates and eliminates those it suspects of partialities in some direction or another; and 5) some manner of recorder, traditionally a stenographer, but today often accompanied, or even replaced, by voice and video recording equipment. If we imagine our governments as full of checks and balances—executive veto to check legislative encroachment, judicial veto of unconstitutional laws, etc.—we need to remember that every individual court and trial is also a web of checks and balances to assure justice for both the victims of crimes and the accused perpetrators (since justice is not served by convicting a non-criminal while the real villain roams free).<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The Judge, as the impartial expositor of law and referee of procedure and evidence, is clearly the most important single individual in the courtroom, but his role is procedural. He facilitates the scheduling of the trial, the impaneling of the jury, rules on which evidence is allowed and which is not, and matters of this and various other natures. He is the check on abuses by both the prosecution and the defense and he attempts to curb potential abuses by the Jury through the answering of questions concerning the law and the issuance of instructions on the proper manner of evaluating evidence, deliberating, and what facts need to be affirmed for conviction(s) to occur.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The Prosecutor’s main function is to marshal the evidence against the defendant in order to attain a just conviction in accordance with the law. He must check the defense if and when they attempt to blur the issues or confuse the jurors about the facts of his case. The defendant and/or his attorney must, of course, dispute the Prosecution’s case, evidence, and witnesses wherever appropriate. Even if the defendant is guilty, if a trial is sought by the defendant, then the Prosecutor must be forced to prove his case. The recorder, of course, is meant to keep a full and accurate record of the proceedings, for other lawyers and judges to review in order to facilitate appeals, but more importantly to help ensure as uniform a standard of justice across jurisdictions governed by the same laws as possible.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">Finally, the jurors. Their primary purpose is to consider the evidence offered by the Prosecutor and the Defense and make a judgment, according to law, about whether the accused is guilty or not of the alleged crime(s). But their duty is as much to the law as anyone else in the courtroom. A jury can and will balk at confirming unjust prosecutions for which the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable conviction. But beyond that, if the public officials—the Judge and Prosecutor—have conducted a capricious and arbitrary trial, juries can often rebuke them in any number of ways. English and American jurisprudence demand unanimity from juries for a conviction. This is a high burden for the prosecution—to get twelve essentially random people to agree to strip a fellow citizen of his rights and property—as well it should be, when one considers how awful it would be for an innocent person to be convicted of a crime. A jury that cannot agree on conviction or acquittal will hang and a mistrial will occur. This is important as an institutional check on weak cases, abuses of prosecutorial power, and unjust laws. A lone juror can hang a jury and cause a mistrial on almost any grounds—though he cannot legally do so as a result of a bribe for instance—and this is also an essential check in cases of mistaken majorities. In terms of its character, a jury must be the following: 1) from approximately the region or district where the crime occurred unless impossible because of the nature of the case—say a mass crime, like a riot, taints the jury pool, or a sensational and well-publicized case prejudices everyone against one side or the other. This is done for speed and expense as much as holding to the idea that one should be tried as much by one’s own peers as possible; 2) impartial—they must not know the principals as much as possible or have firm prejudices about the facts of the case—in John Marshall’s paraphrase of Blackstone, the jurors “ought to be superior to every exception;” and 3) they must be random and not appointed until needed—this is for the end of preventing any attempt to corrupt the jury by making its identity unknown until the last possible moment (the same idea undergirds much of the thinking behind the Presidential electoral college)—and furthermore this is meant to make sure no one citizen is called to sit on a jury anymore than any other citizen. All have an equal interest in the fair conduct of trials and proper application of law—therefore all have an equal opportunity to sit on a jury. Selecting yourself for a particular case or jury betrays an interest in the eyes of the law for the outcome—the goal of the law is to truly get an indifferent jury unprejudiced as far as the particulars of the case are concerned: “They ought to stand perfectly indifferent between the parties,” were Marshall’s exact words.</span></span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"> <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></span></span></a></span></span><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The honest application of law and the conduct of fair trials are both absolutely essential to a free society and every single citizen has a vital and overwhelming interest in them. An impartial and just criminal justice system is one of the very few paramount reasons we have a government at all. John Locke said that “The great and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">chief end</i> ... of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is the Preservation of their Property</i>,” and Blackstone tied this end to his discussion of the jury system for the English citizen: “his own property, his liberty, and his life, depend upon maintaining, in it’s legal force, the constitutional trial by jury.”</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[8]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> John Adams echoed this in 1771: “In the Administration of Justice too, the People have an important Share, Juries are taken by Lot or by Suffrage from the Mass of the People, and no Man can be condemned of Life, or Limb, or Property or Reputation, without the Concurrence of the Voice of the People.”</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[9]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> Could juries err? Yes of course, but unlike corrupt or erroneous jurists, said James Wilson: “the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical.”</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[10]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> Their errors, though certainly not as prevalent as an unchecked Star Chamber that stacked the deck for unjust laws, unjust prosecutions and unfair trials, would be isolated to particular cases and would have no effect outside of particular courtrooms. The price, steep as it was and is, is worth it given the disadvantages and the steeper prices of the alternatives. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">So what about issuing a judicial writ to wrangle this jury into existence? How do we justify that? The history of the jury is interesting in this regard. In ancient Athens, for instance, the trial system essentially consisted of an accuser (who acted as prosecutor) charging a defendant before the assembly (the accused acted as his own lawyer, though often he hired a speech writer to help him prepare his remarks). The assembly—usually upwards of 500 citizens for trials—listened to these arguments and then voted by simple majority for who was correct. If found guilty, the litigants suggested the proper penalties and then the assembly voted again—the punishment which won a majority was carried out almost immediately. When the Normans conquered England in 1066, they brought the institution of trial by battle with them—which subjected the dispensing of justice to armed combat in cases involving no conclusive independent evidence. Whoever won the court-sanctioned duel was thought to have triumphed by the will of God as a sign of his favor for the just. This system was unable to supplant the far more fundamentally democratic traditions of the feudal Anglo-Saxons, in which lay the forerunners of not only Parliament, but also trial by jury—almost certainly a holdover from the Roman era. In England, the jury trial was not automatic until after the constitutionally transformative 17<span style="font-size: small;"><sup>th</sup> century had come to an end. Before that—and in some cases, even afterwards—it had to be requested. This was done in informative language—one asked to be judged by “the country.” That is, anyone brought before the bar could ask that the facts the court proposed to convict them with be adjudged by twelve of their neighbors. A sheriff was then dispatched to appoint a jury to meet at the courthouse on an appointed day, with all the relevant witnesses, the judge, the defendant and anyone else who wanted to attend. These observers, or talesmen, could be called upon if the jury pool proved inadequate to seat twelve qualified jurors. Even at the earliest stages there were already procedures to dismiss individual jurors or whole juries for fear that they were biased or that the Sheriff sent to gather them had picked a corrupt group on purpose for one reason or another.</span></span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[11]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">According to Blackstone, the early jury system was voluntary. The Sheriff simply told people to come by on a certain day and hoped that they did so. “This jury is not summoned, and therefore, not appearing at the day, must unavoidably make default,” says Blackstone, “For which reason a compulsive process is now awarded against the jurors, called in the common pleas a writ of habeas corpora juratorum.” If the government is instituted to protect property and to protect the individual rights of citizens—and also creating a judicial system of checks and balances that presumes the innocence of the accused, guarantees them a speedy trial with a chance to subpoena witnesses and evidence, and also a chance to have “the country” hear and judge it all—then it simply makes no sense to wait around for word of the trial to spread and volunteers to show up. Beyond that, it violates the principles outlined above, namely the principle of randomness and equality of opportunity to sit on a jury. Blackstone tells us that the old principle of jury selection had been <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de vicineto</i>—from the particular neighborhood—but just as with a jury system of self-selection the authorities found “that jurors, coming out of the immediate neighbourhood, would be apt to intermix their prejudices and partialities in the trial of right. And this our law was so sensible of, that it for a long time has been gradually relinquishing this practice; ... the jury being now only to come <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de corpore comitatus</i>, from the body of the county at large.”</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[12]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> Clearly present during the evolution of the jury has been a great concern with the impartiality of jurors—and great lengths are gone to in order to assure this for the accused (who in theory is always an innocent man until the moment a verdict is pronounced in open court) and for the rights of everyone else in the society.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">The unwritten constitution of Great Britain and the written constitutions of the states of, and of, the United States presume that all citizens are, in fact, latent jurors. A jury was nothing more, and certainly nothing less, than, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, “a certain number of citizens chosen randomly and entrusted temporarily with the right to judge.”</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[13]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> The best means of impaneling a jury has taken the form, over the last few centuries, of calling a random assortment of people to the courthouse to whittle them down to a twelve citizen jury. Because of the sensitivity to the temporary inconvenience of sitting on a jury—though the interest and benefits of the jury system as a whole trump any possible narrow transient interest that can be at stake privately in any rational hierarchy of values (which cannot exist outside the context of the free society the jury as an institution is meant to buttress)—a number of protections are included. For instance, one cannot and should not be fired from their employment due to absence in what is essentially a sudden and temporary high public office. In addition, all jurors are paid some amount of money as remuneration for their services, and there are a number of exceptions in place for various circumstances and situations to exempt citizens who cannot otherwise sit on a jury.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;">That every single citizen of the United States is a latent public functionary (to give the most unglamorous possible name to the high responsibility of being a juror) perhaps comes as a surprise to some Americans, but that is a function of the poor nature of civic education in the Republic today. Other republics attempt to maintain a free and fair justice system without trials by juries, but not ours. Now, do the juries have to be staffed by the issuance of writs? Not necessarily. Any state is free to experiment with alternative means of assuring free, fair, and speedy jury trials with impartial jurors. My principle concern with any attempt at such a scheme would be the loss of the equality of opportunity principle that has always marked juries in Great Britain and the United States.</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[14]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"> Since a jury trial is, at base, having the facts of a case judged by “the country,” that means that the whole country is to be eligible to hear them until otherwise disqualified in any particular case. Any system of self-selection will invariably find itself the victim of free-riding unless the compensatory aspect is raised to such heights that people are competing night and day to get on juries. Of course, the pitfalls of that are subjects for another day. Also, some citizens would remain oblivious to the operation of the courts and the administration of justice regardless of financial incentive—again, the jury system is meant to be the equal inheritance of all citizens. It was once considered the greatest of privileges and rights—the very essence of freedom—to be able to partake in the justice system in such an important way; or, conversely, that at the moment of the most extreme peril, you could rely on your fellows to pass judgment on you, and not an insulated group of barristers or an obliviously powerful judge. If we have come to the moment in time where that is no longer the case, then the American Republic deserves accolades for having eliminated the dangers of reposing all judgment power in the hands of judges or tribunals. The jury as an institution is truly meant to be a democratic check on the pretensions of usurping aristocratic lawyers and jurists. As Blackstone—no friend of democracy—said: “Every new tribunal, erected for the decision of facts, without the intervention of a jury, ... is a step towards establishing aristocracy, the most oppressive of absolute governments.”</span></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black;"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[15]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span class="hbodytext1"><span style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="hbodytext1"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">PART II<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">It should be quite obvious now that my principle objections to Dr. Peikoff’s answer relate to his agnosticism concerning the propriety and value of trials by jury. But as I have already dealt with the value of juries in Part I, I will move on to his perfunctory nod towards what consent means in a self-governed republic with a constitution designed to protect freedom and individual rights. “If you sign up...for a government you volunteer, you know, to help set up and support—you want protection, you pay the cost—then implicit in that, is that you will contribute the minimum which is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">actually required</i> for it to perform its functions, even if that includes a certain degree of your own participation.” Putting aside Dr. Hsieh’s reaction to this very mild call for civic mindedness for a moment, Dr. Peikoff ought to have expanded on two points implicit in his statement here. First, the idea of consent to the form of government in the jurisdiction one chooses to live in; and second, the notion that as a citizen in this or any jurisdiction, you might have to do something on occasion to make sure the Republic functions and survives. If Objectivism becomes a philosophy that promotes the bizarrely quixotic idea—and let me be clear that I do not accuse Dr. Peikoff or Dr. Hsieh of this—that one should, ever, try to exist in a free society without doing anything, ever, to support its continued existence then it will become as doomed as anarchism or the dead-end paranoia of Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche—all leading as surely to tyranny as arsenic to the grave.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Liberal political theory rests on the idea of consent. Not consent to tyranny. You cannot properly consent to a tyrannical government—because it ceases to be a government properly so called, but a tyranny, or a government without law (“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Where-ever Law ends, Tyranny begins</i>,” said Locke).</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[16]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> This is different from the doctrine of Social Contract in a number of important ways, but most importantly because the Social Contract, as expounded by its most prolific champion, Rousseau, called for the primacy of the “General Will” above all else. Even law meant nothing because whatever the “General Will” decided was, inherently, the law. People individually surrendered to the “General Will” all that was not reserved for them privately by the consensus. Rousseau phrased it famously in many different ways but here is a typical example: </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">“We can see from this that the sovereign power, wholly absolute, wholly sacred, and wholly inviolable as it is, does not and cannot exceed the limits of the general agreements, and that every man can fully dispose of whatever has been left to him of his goods and liberty through these agreements, so that the sovereign never has a right to burden one subject more than another, because when the matter becomes a private one, its power is no longer competent.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[17]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> This is obviously quite different from the idea that men have certain unalienable rights derived from nature, and that to protect these rights they form a government to adjudicate disputes, punish crimes, and repel foreign aggression. Consent is easy in the case of the original founders—they obviously consented as they made their own government to protect their own rights, including the notion that as citizens they were all jurors in waiting to aid the judicial branches of their governments. All future immigrants also are obviously clearly identified as consenting members of the polity. As Diderot put it: “There is no individual who, discontented with the form of his country’s government, cannot go elsewhere in search of a better.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[18]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> Obviously North Korea did not exist at the end of the eighteenth century, but the point is still generally valid.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">But what of generations unborn? Jefferson puzzled over this endlessly, positing to his friend Madison and others the notion that every twenty years or so society ought to undergo a revolution, wipe away all the past legal arrangements, and start over. Madison balked. Jefferson had forgotten his Locke. The key to consent for the unborn is that, as children, they are obviously “by the Law of right Reason” born “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a Subject of no Country or Government.</i> He is under his Fathers Tuition and Authority, till he come to Age of Discretion; and then he is a Free-man, at liberty what Government he will put himself under; what Body Politick he will unite himself to.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[19]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> Now this did not mean that any Government anywhere was ever entitled to treat any citizens, foreign born or domestic, as if they were without rights. Remember that the whole essence of Locke’s political theory is that rights exist in that state of nature, before government, and that men create government to protect those rights. But all countries have different idiosyncrasies and institutions that may or may not rub people the wrong way. Locke—and no one else among Enlightenment thinkers I have been able to find—did not highlight sitting on juries as such a “push” institution, but certainly it could be for some people, at least in theory (though I have never come across a primary document of a person who emigrated from the United States or Great Britain in order to flee the onerous strain of possibly being called to sit on a jury, I do not discount the possibility of finding one). So the process of consent might happen all at once, as during the Revolution and constitution-making period of the 1780s when Loyalists migrated away from the Republic, or, far more commonly during the history of the world: “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the Consent of Free-men, born under Government</i>, which only <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">makes them Members of it</i>, being given separately in their turns, as each comes to be of Age, and not in a multitude together; People take no notice of it, and thinking it not done at all, or not necessary, conclude they are naturally Subjects as they are Men.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="color: black; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[20]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> There is no Social Contract, because no one ever meets with everyone else to sign anything—particularly not a blank check to be subsumed by an amorphous “General Will.” But, deciding to reside under some Constituted legal authority as opposed to another—this occurs within the United States more often than people leaving the country altogether, for the moment—is the only real form of consent one can give, outside a period of Constitution making, to the form of their government. After that, it takes active participation to alter it—if it can be altered at all, depending on the government. But, as before, no amount of consent to the form of a government can cede to that government any sort of right to usurp the unalienable rights of individuals. And it was Locke who maintained, in the wake of the Glorious Revolution he did much to foment, that any Government that became destructive of those specific ends that justified its existence lost all its consensual authority and ought to be destroyed and replaced.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">In a free society—no one can be shanghaied into the armed forces in peace time or pillaged by the government in the form of taxation. One’s life is an unalienable right that the state cannot be ceded the right to dispose of—except through the delimited context of obscene and terrible criminal behavior defined by law and adjudicated through due process of law—and the government can have no pretension to making itself party to private economic transactions between individuals for the purpose of skimming some off the top. But the practical issue of how to go about funding the state then becomes a matter of some concern. Voluntary contributions are the ideal, of course, but one worries about free-riding. User fees are a possibility, but then government begins to resemble the “insurance companies” proffered by anarcho-capitalists, particularly because maintaining ultimate jurisdiction over a territory where a number of people are not contributing citizens creates a series of bizarre and unprecedented issues. For instance, if a person who contributes nothing is sued by someone who does contribute, is the former <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ipso facto</i> the loser no matter the factual circumstances of the case? Or is the suit impossible until the former contributes? If a contributor murders a non-contributor, do the courts respond? These are just some of the plethora of issues that needs to be solved in a user fee system. Obviously, government is vital to a free society and people should want to contribute to its upkeep. Perhaps a way of “encouraging” volunteerism as far as the government’s maintenance goes would be a non-coercive campaign of “shaming.” For instance, if everyone contributed last year and you did not, that fact could be advertised so that your fellows might ask you about it. This is highly speculative and, of course, subject to all manner of objections. Enough on this, the point is simply that Objectivism, while concerned with the protection of all individuals against the initiation of force—as when they are drafted into the armed forces or have their paychecks pilfered—does not encourage, and should never encourage, the notion that in a purely voluntary system the non-contributing citizen is to be seen as anything approaching ideal. He is not acting beyond his rights, but if everyone followed his example the state would collapse and no one’s rights would be respected or protected at all. Can humans—over a wide swathe of territory and in political communities numbering in the hundreds of millions—achieve that sort of unprecedented and unrecorded self-discipline combined with rational thought, valuation, and action? Perhaps not if a compensated selection of days to preserve the free and fair criminal justice system is considered an unjustifiable tyrannical affront, but for now the jury is still out.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">This brings us to Dr. Hsieh’s rejoinder. I no longer think it is necessary to rehash the conceptual error that occurred in relation to juries and the equivocation of sitting on them to being drafted or being robbed. But I think one particular portion of her argument deserves particular attention. In Dr. Hsieh’s argument in favor of equating juries, the draft, and taxes, she says:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">And the government here is going to say, “But, look, we can’t function without people to serve on juries!” Well, yeah, that’s true, but that doesn’t justify using compulsion. The government also can’t function without money to pay rent on its courthouses, but that doesn’t justify taking that money by force, via compulsory taxation. The government can’t function without soldiers to fight if we’re being invaded or there’s a justified war, but that doesn’t justify the draft. The fact that something is necessary for government never justifies the government initiating force to make that something happen. In a free society, force can not be initiated, ever—never never never. Even if it’s necessary—even if it’s “necessary”—that the government have this money, or have these people, in order to serve its functions. Force is only justified in retaliation—meaning against criminals, against invaders, and so on. And so, and the fact is, that the people who don’t want to drop everything in their lives and serve on some jury because a bureaucrat has called them up, that is not initiating force against anybody.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Furthermore she states that should this purely voluntary government come into being and then cannot muster the funds or armies (or juries) needed to defend the rights of its citizens, it deserves what it gets essentially. This is good as a philosophical argument, in that it is an interesting thought and requires analysis and answer, but it more resembles a floating abstraction that anything rooted in reality. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The best government that never existed in the history of the world</i></b>—it relies on voluntary contributions, a volunteer jury system and a volunteer army <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">during an invasion(!)</i>—<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">deserves destruction if it fails?</i></b> And it does not deserve it because the ideas which motivated its policies did not work in a reality dominated by rapacious neighbors, but because the people in it were not good enough to “deserve” their freedom? How, for instance, would a serious student of history, individual rights, law, and government like James Madison have reconciled the notion that men, who could not make an unprecedented government work in a world full of bandits, deserved their demise, after writing something like this?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; tab-stops: -4.0in; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[21]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; tab-stops: -4.0in; text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Aside from resembling every encomium ever written for Poland after a dismemberment (in the eighteenth century, not that which occurred in 1939), Dr. Hsieh’s manner of reasoning on this matter resembles quite a number of parallels, but let’s remain strictly in the American experience.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The early Republic was infested with pessimistic doomsayers—Samuel Adams and John Randolph among others—ready to proclaim that the people had proven themselves unworthy of republican government. Why? Because they did not seem particularly concerned about the well-being of the polity or their own civic roles, even in the midst of the greatest emergencies. During the Revolution they often did not join the Continental Army, they often traded scarce war supplies with the British because they paid in gold and not inflationary Continental paper, and when there was not a British Army around they seemed curiously unconcerned about paying their quota to the general war fund of Congress. During the War of 1812, large salaries were unable to fill out the authorized strength of the army, State governments threw up roadblocks to calling out the militia in the Federal service and then again when the government wanted to use those federalized soldiers for offensive operations over the border. People refused to lend the government money to finance the war not because they disputed that Britain had violated the rights of Americans, but because they wished to see President Madison and his Republican party fail. Fortunately the republic did not collapse during either of these crises, but they tell us something important—namely that even the best of populations in the history of the world during legitimate existential crises behaved in ways that were clearly counter-productive to success (and success here meant the creation and preservation of the world’s only rights respecting republic). Had a calamity occurred, would we look back and say these people “deserved” to be oppressed by British armies? I certainly hope not.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">We do not need to carry around an overwhelmingly tragic historical sense, but we do need to be a bit more aware of just how rare even our compromised level of self-government is and has been. The quote at the beginning of this essay was written by John Milton just as the restoration of the Stuart Monarchy was about to occur in England. His desperate musing about the use of force to keep the Republic and make people live in liberty was undoubtedly unwise, but he was watching his countrymen clamor for the return of the son of the man they had beheaded a decade earlier to be their King. Did John Milton “deserve” to watch the restoration of a debauched admirer of absolutism to a throne he fought to eliminate from the world? Cato and Cicero did not “deserve” their fates anymore than the Greeks who did not listen to Demosthenes until it was too late to thwart Philip. Of course, their failure was partially their fault—but they no more deserved to be conquered and enslaved than a person who leaves their door unlocked deserves to be robbed and murdered.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">While we should do everything to encourage and create a society than banishes all the initiation of force that we can, we cannot pretend for a moment, that that goal will produce necessarily the results we expect. This is not meant as a discouragement to trying, but simply a call to be wary—not fatalistic, just abundantly cautious—of human nature at home, but even more particularly abroad. Why? Because, while man can choose reason, life, and productiveness, history suggests that he has more often chosen the irrational, death, and sloth. Why this is the case is a fascinating and fundamentally important historical and philosophical issue, but not one I plan to tackle here.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">PART III<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Now, finally, what did Ayn Rand say about juries? As far as I have been able to tell, very little in her non-fiction writing dealt with the subject of juries. But, her fiction is replete with courtrooms and juries. Of course, her play <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Night of January 16<sup><span style="font-size: small;">th</span></sup></i> features an all volunteer jury of audience members that could choose the ending of the play depending upon their verdict. Whether one could interpret the audience participation as a commentary on being summoned to sit on a jury is an open question, but not one I have been able to discover any commentary from Ayn Rand to answer. Also, Dr. Hsieh does not cite this work as evidence to bolster Objectivism’s endorsement of her views on juries. In fact, neither Dr. Peikoff nor Dr. Hsieh offers up any evidence from Ayn Rand to endorse their positions—which is an admirable refusal to indulge in competing appeals to authority. But since Objectivism is the philosophical system created and propounded by Ayn Rand I think it might have been appropriate for Dr. Hsieh, for instance, to acknowledge that if the draft and taxes are the same as the writ issued to summon a jury, Ayn Rand failed to ever make that comparison so far as I am aware. This is remarkable for two reasons. The first is that she wrote about justice, the draft, and taxes quite a lot—not to the mention the issue of the initiation of force, with numerous illustrative examples. Yet, so far as I am aware, she was silent on the jury summons. So maybe that was just an oversight, or she was simply going after the biggest offenders first, saving the jury summons for after the grand defeat of the draft (which she lived to see happen) and taxes. Perhaps, but there are passages and scenes in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fountainhead </i>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Atlas Shrugged</i> that make me think that she knew why the jury system existed and the reasons—laid out in Part I—for why juries were summoned.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">First, in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fountainhead</i>, the novel climaxes in its final part with the trial of Howard Roark for blowing up his own Apartment complex after it had been destroyed (artistically and conceptually) without his consent and in violation of his agreement to design it—the scene includes a stirring closing argument from Roark to the jury about to sit in judgment over his fate. Keep in mind, there is no question of Roark’s literal guilt—he admits to blowing up his own creation quite freely and he is caught red-handed at the scene of the crime. But the key to his acquittal is the jury (putting the lie to Dr. Hsieh’s theory that these brutally coerced juries cannot be forced to think—which may or may not be true, but I do not think the writings of Ayn Rand could ever be used to bolster such a position as it relates to the political and judicial reality of the jury box):<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Twelve men sat in the jury box. They listened, their faces attentive and emotionless. People had whispered that it was a tough-looking jury. There were two executives of industrial concerns, two engineers, a mathematician, a truck driver, a bricklayer, an electrician, a gardener and three factory workers. The impaneling of the jury had taken some time. Roark had challenged many talesmen. He had picked these twelve. The prosecutor had agreed, telling himself that this was what happened when an amateur undertook to handle his own defense; a lawyer would have chosen the gentlest types, those most likely to respond to an appeal for mercy; Roark had chosen the hardest faces.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[22]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Roark selected a jury of his peers—challenging many of the talesmen (Rand’s use of this word is a tipoff that she was fully versed in the technical details of juries—including the fact that they were summoned by writ)—and they, as thinking men, acquitted him in short order. This is, of course, a romantic view of the jury—not unlike that of similar artistic dramatizations of juries at the time, i.e. the film <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Twelve Angry Men</i>—but well within the realm of possibility. A man who clearly breaks the law, but with a just and moral cause, often has been saved by a jury—particularly in American fiction. Without a jury, Howard Roark would have been far more likely to end the novel in prison—instead of triumphantly at the top of his masterpiece skyscraper.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Atlas Shrugged</i>, the situation is markedly different. Instead of being set in contemporary 1930s/1940s America, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Atlas</i> takes place in a future tantalizingly close to but beyond the 1950s. When Hank Rearden is brought before a court for hoarding his own Rearden Metal, Rand creates a dichotomy between the ordinary people who watch the proceedings in the courtroom and the judges. There is no jury this time, because, as Rand says:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge’s bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room at atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[23]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">So, clearly, Rand was fully versed in, and in agreement with, the notion that jury trials are significant indicators of the rule of law and a free society. Their suspension is like the proverbial fire bell ringing in the night—a clear warning of impending danger. She illustrates this by having her villains eliminate Rearden’s ability to be tried before his peers. And we learn why as the scene goes on, as Rearden’s refusal to be stripped of his property and his right to his own life turns the watching crowd into his desperate supporters—much to his own surprise. These are the people that would have been impaneled on a jury had it not been suspended. In the end, Rearden is fined by the judges, but the fine is held in abeyance. The crowd cheers him, laughs at the feckless judges, and leaves Rearden puzzled that these same people are the ones driving the world off a cliff, unknowingly perhaps. His confusion extends beyond his temporary reprieve.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Should we be puzzled though that Ayn Rand did not write about juries in her non-fiction writing? As should be clear by now, my answer is no. Even the Enlightenment thinkers and founding fathers most concerned with individual rights, restricting government force to protect those rights, and juries as an institution, rarely took much time to write about them. By 1776, juries were such an overwhelmingly revered institution under assault by a capricious British government that no one thought it was necessary to pen long encomiums for their defense. By 1787, the alarm that the new Constitution might abolish juries with its silence caused many to vote against ratification and demand a bill of rights. That Bill of Rights would devote three amendments to jury trial—and not one of them for a moment viewed the eventual summons to sit in the jury box as an imposition or an example of tyrannical government. The summons was a mechanism to ensure fairness and the principle of equality of opportunity to sit on juries—as well as a speedy trial for the accused—rather than a judicial press gang to staff juries. The very notion that anyone could ever possibly call a jury summons a species of tyranny would have flipped their entire world on its head—where a long valued and fought for bulwark of liberty was suddenly something they should eradicate. They simply could never have thought of it in that manner—thus we find no objections to it in the records (as least none that I have ever seen, and I have been scouring them in preparation for this essay), nor do we find them in any of the writings of Ayn Rand that I am familiar with.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">As with much else about American government and political society, it was the discerning eye and sharp pen of Alexis de Tocqueville that finally commented extensively on juries. As a Frenchman, he noticed most things that Americans were long accustomed to and felt no need to notice or defend systematically. He immediately saw that the jury was a premier political institution of the American Republic—made up of all the voting citizens across the country and thus the one institution most citizens were likely to come into direct contact with. And unlike the others, the jury box was their only way to directly participate in a vital role of the government (it remains so to this day). Even more than the judicial qualities—which as a French nobleman, he could not bring himself to admire fully—he admired the political aspects of the American jury. “They teach men the practice of equity. Each man, in judging his neighbor, believes he may be judged in his turn. That is especially true of juries in civil cases: almost no one fears that one day he will be the subject of a criminal hearing but everyone might suffer a lawsuit.” Tocqueville added, “Juries teach all men not to shirk responsibility for their own actions; without that manly attitude no political virtue can exist.” The courtroom and the jury box were classrooms where citizens learned their rights, associated with brilliant legal minds, and attained an understanding of law. Despite his Gallic prejudices, Tocqueville knew as well as Ayn Rand that: “All sovereigns who have wished to draw the sources of their power from themselves and to control society instead of letting it control them, have destroyed or weakened the jury system. The Tudors used to imprison jurors who decided not to convict and Napoleon had them chosen by his agents.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[24]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"> The jury box and the courtroom are quintessential American settings and Ayn Rand exalted in their glorious potentialities in more ways than most great American writers. I do not think that was an accident. Nor do I think her “failure” to compare a jury summons to the draft and taxation was an accident either.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 150%;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">CONCLUSION<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">A jury is a direct democratic check on the judicial process that, over a number of centuries, has evolved from a voluntary group of peers asked to attend court on a particular day selected among the literal neighbors of the accused to a random assortment of citizens summoned on the day of trial from the wider county or district in which an alleged crime or grievance occurred. All citizens in a free country that have established their constitution to include this check within the judicial branch are latent jurors. When one seeks citizenship in such a polity, one knows that this is the manner in which rights are protected “on the ground” during the enforcement of law. There is nothing inherently wrong with establishing a polity where all citizens—by fact of citizenship—play some direct role in decision making and governance. This is what the jury system is—the direct involvement of the citizenry in the dispensing of justice. A jury is, literally, the people embodied for a temporary and limited—though fundamentally important—purpose. That purpose is primarily to judge facts in a criminal or civil case and, secondarily, to provide oversight and protection for fellow citizens in the dock on weak evidence and, more critically, they provide a check against abuses of power on the part of their appointed judicial officers. In order to aim as closely as possible to jurors that are “above all exception” it has been found necessary to abandon a principle of self-selection and institute a policy of random summons. Protections are offered for this temporary elevation to active from latent juror—lenience and dismissal for those prevented from physically being a part of the jury for a variety of reasons, pay for hours spent on the job, and protection from recrimination from other citizens due to one’s status on a jury.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Let there be no confusion. A juror is as important a public functionary as any officer created by our Constitutions. Refusing to assume the active role of the juror is tantamount to a President who refuses to enforce laws, or a judge who is perpetually drunk (this has occurred). But what should be the penalty for such a dereliction? In this case, nothing as formidable as the penalties that await those more exalted officers is necessary or warranted. While jurors are fundamentally important to the preservation of individual rights in our system, they are also quite easy to replace. Citizens who refuse to come to court or, when they come to court, refuse to sit on a jury, should be given the equivalent of a legal slap on the wrist and dismissed—perhaps with an admonishment from the judge if nothing else. While they have failed to live up to a very simple responsibility of self-government—their fellows ought never to be vindictive to the point of true injury. The summons is a tool to ensure the system works fairly, properly, quickly and cheaply above all else—it is not meant to be a bludgeon to press juries into the dock. If it ever actually became that—and let us be clear, it has never been that—then its days would be appropriately numbered. But for more than four hundred years, through usurpations, wars, legal assaults and all manner of trials—real and fictional—the jury system and the judicial writs used to call people to activity, have been among the principal pillars that have preserved liberty in happy times as well as dark.</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">I will end with one more quote from Tocqueville, who as a foreigner living in a country full of admirers of juries though very few actual attempts to have them, commented on the peculiar history of the institution from the standpoint of a political naturalist:</span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">When the English adopted the jury system, they were a semi-barbarian nation; since then, they have turned into one of the most enlightened nations on earth and their attachment to the jury system has appeared to grow along with their enlightenment. They have left their own country, some to found colonies, others independent states. The main body of the nation has retained a king; several groups of settlers have founded powerful republics; but, everywhere, the English have uniformly advocated the jury system. They set it up everywhere or have hastened to re-establish it. A judicial institution which has thus commanded the approval of a great nation over centuries and has been copied enthusiastically in every stage of civilization, in every climate and under every form of government, cannot possibly be contrary to the spirit of justice.</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[25]</span></span></span></span></a><o:p></o:p></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 0in; text-align: justify;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">While his ardor for the imprimatur of this evidence is overstated, I think he was, nonetheless, perfectly correct.</span></div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 150%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /> </span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 150%;">APPENDIX<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(187, 187, 187); border-style: none none dotted; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 31pt;"><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Transcript of Peikoff Answer, 19 July 2010:<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">“Should jury duty be compulsory as it is in the U.S. today?”<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Answer: “My answer would be: I don’t see anything wrong that, because if you sign up—vol—for a government you volunteer, you know, to help set up and support—you want the protection, you pay the cost—then implicit in that, is that you will contribute the minimum which is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">actually required</i> for it to perform its functions, even if that includes a certain degree of your own participation. And I think the two obvious things that are required is—people to serve as a jury, unless we go to a completely judge centered system (and I don’t have a view on that, I’m not so keen on juries, but I don’t know enough to take a view) and the other is the right of subpoena. These are inherent in justice—for the government to collect the evidence and (if it’s going to be a jury) have someone to judge it. But, now don’t extend this to say “Well, then people don’t have enough to eat, if the government doesn’t have enough to eat, we can’t have function, we should sign up for welfare....” that does not follow. We’re talking about directly in the performance of the function [of the government], not in any external factor. So, I would say if the jury system is the means of deciding and you want that society paying voluntarily for it, then that implies that you’re going to contribute. Who knows, they might have a two tier system, people who are running a jury system at a discount, I don’t know. I mean, the way we stand today, it’s a question of will the United States survive for a little while. So the question of how would juries operate in utopia? ha! I just hope people listening to me live long enough for it to come up.”<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><br />
</div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Transcript of Diana Hsieh’s Response to the Same Question and to Dr. Peikoff’s Response, 19 May 2011<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">“So, first of all, I want to give some background context here. In a July 9, 2010 podcast, Dr. Leonard Peikoff was asked and answered a question about compulsory jury duty—about whether that was legitimate in a free society. Now his answer—which really shocked me, I have to say—was that there was nothing, nothing wrong with that. And he said, this is a quote from the actual podcast: “if you sign up for a government, if you volunteer to help set up and support it, you want the protection, you pay the cost, then implicit in that is that you will contribute the minimum which is actually required for it to perform its functions, even if that includes a certain degree of your own participation. The two obvious things that are required are people serve as a jury and the other is the right of a subpoena.” And he actually went on to talk about how he’s skeptical of jury trials, but if jury trials are the right thing, then yeah people would be obliged and could be compelled to serve on them. Now my view is the complete, complete opposite. I think compulsory jury duty is just as much a violation of individual rights as is compulsory taxation or the draft. I think it’s morally wrong and I think that it’s impractical too.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">So first I want to look at how this violates rights. Basically when the government says “By the way, Greg, you have to serve on a jury next week,” and that’s what compelling that means, and you have no choice about how long the jury’s going to—or how long you’re going to be serving on this jury—or anything like that, it’s just you’re being told, you’re being compelled, “you have to go serve on this jury.” You are being forced to abandon your plans, your goals, your projects, and do their bidding. And the government here is going to say, “But, look, we can’t function without people to serve on juries!” Well, yeah, that’s true, but that doesn’t justify using compulsion. The government also can’t function without money to pay rent on its courthouses, but that doesn’t justify taking that money by force, via compulsory taxation. The government can’t function without soldiers to fight if we’re being invaded or there’s a justified war, but that doesn’t justify the draft. The fact that something is necessary for government never justifies the government initiating force to make that something happen. In a free society, force can not be initiated, ever—never never never. Even if it’s necessary—even if it’s “necessary”—that the government have this money, or have these people, in order to serve its functions. Force is only justified in retaliation—meaning against criminals, against invaders, and so on. And so, and the fact is, that the people who don’t want to drop everything in their lives and serve on some jury because a bureaucrat has called them up, that is not initiating force against anybody.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">So the question is, so basically I think that juries, like taxation, like military service, has to be voluntary—people have to consent to being on a jury, they have to volunteer. Well, so the question is “But, what happens if people in a free country are not willing to serve on juries?” Well, first of all, I simply don’t think that would actually happen. I do think people would, in fact, volunteer. People volunteer to be in the military—risking their lives for a pittance of pay—they’re gonna also volunteer to be on juries too. And I think that people would be willing to volunteer, particularly if they could pick the time—if they said “Hey look, I’ve got this week free, I would be willing to serve on a jury for these five days.” And I think the reason that people would be willing to do that is because it would in fact be an interesting experience and it would be something that would be informative and you would be contributing to something that’s very good—namely locking up of criminals and getting them out of the way and letting go of innocent people or otherwise resolving civil conflicts between people, this is an important thing and it’s something that people in a free society would wish to contribute to. Now I do think that if that, if that sort of “Hey look, you can get this interesting experience,” if that’s insufficient then I do think that people should be paid. Now I don’t think there should be professional juries because being a juror is not a skill—the whole point of a jury is to be judging matter of facts which an ordinary person is competent to do—so a professional jury sort of implies that you know something about the relevant law or whatnot which I don’t think is relevant here. I don’t think that’s required or even desirable. But what you might have is people who volunteer routinely—let’s say people who are retired or people who are, let’s say, in between careers or something like that, they might be willing and able to volunteer routinely.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">So I think that first of all—that’s my first point is that you would in fact have people willing to serve on juries. But on the other had, so what happens if people, if enough people don’t—let’s say, you know, what actually happens? Well you know what happens? The criminals go free. Conflicts don’t get resolved. And if that’s not incentive enough for people to actually serve on a jury—that plus the pay and experience and so on—then I think a free country doesn’t deserve to stay free. And that’s exactly the same as with the military—if people are unwilling to defend their country by taking up arms against an invader then conquest is the result that those people deserve.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Now I do think here, by the way, that subpoenas are a very different kind of case. Subpoenas are not like jury duty, military service, and taxation. I think all those three things are the same, subpoenas are something different.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">You do not want to place your life and your liberty in the hands of a person who is being compelled to serve on a jury. You want a person who is motivated by his own judgment, a person committed by his own judgment to be fair and objective. You don’t want a person who is motivated by this fear of punishment if they refuse to comply. That is absolutely not safe, that is just as perilous as putting yourself under the knife of a doctor who is being forced to operate on you.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">Finally I do want to address one thing, because Leonard Peikoff claims that if you support the government then you might be compelled to serve on juries. So it seems like there’s a kind hypothetical—like only if you are supporting government, if you are somebody who is wanting to kind of participate in its protections and so on. But I still think that that hypothetical changes nothing because it’s still wrong to force people even if they are people who are supporting the government. In a free society, a person is not obliged to support his government in every possible way at any given moment. The government does not have a right to call on people who support the government to say “Ok, now you must serve.” The government basically can’t demand or compel that, anything, that a person to give anything or to do anything, without violating their rights. So I think that, let’s say if a person serves in the military, it might be perfectly right for them never ever ever to pay a dime in voluntary taxes, in voluntary contributions, because they have contributed, let’s say, 10 years of their life to national defense. I think that it would be perfectly legitimate to pay less in taxes when you are a poor student, or let’s say when you’re young parents or just if you’re you know you don’t have the money that you might have later on in life. If you’re busy with your work or your kids I think it would be perfectly legitimate to say “I’m not going to do jury duty for the next ten years, but maybe I’ll do it later when I have the time.” In other words, people need to be free in a free society to contribute to the government, to the maintenance of their protection, according to their own judgment in what fits the context of the circumstances of their life, not just because the government says “Ok, you, now, it’s your turn, get over here, sit in this jury box.” That is not right, that is not the way a free society would operate.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div style="border: currentColor; mso-border-bottom-alt: dotted #BBBBBB .75pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 31.0pt 0in; mso-pagination: none; padding: 0in;"><br />
</div></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Ayn Rand, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fountainhead</i>, 1989 Easton Press Edition [originally published 1943]</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Part Four, Chapter 18</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“Twelve men sat in the jury box. They listened, their faces attentive and emotionless. People had whispered that it was a tough-looking jury. There were two executives of industrial concerns, two engineers, a mathematician, a truck driver, a bricklayer, an electrician, a gardener and three factory workers. The impaneling of the jury had taken some time. Roark had challenged many talesmen. He had picked these twelve. The prosecutor had agreed, telling himself that this was what happened when an amateur undertook to handle his own defense; a lawyer would have chosen the gentlest types, those most likely to respond to an appeal for mercy; Roark had chosen the hardest faces.” pg. 721</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Ayn Rand, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Atlas Shrugged</i>, 2000 Easton Press Edition, Two Volumes [originally published 1959]</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Part Two, Chapter 4 “The Sanction of the Victim”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“According to the procedure established by directives, cases of this kind were not tried by a jury, but by a panel of three judges appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources; the procedure, the directives had stated, was to be informal and democratic. The judge’s bench had been removed from the old Philadelphia courtroom for this occasion, and replaced by a table on a wooden platform; it gave the room at atmosphere suggesting the kind of meeting where a presiding body puts something over on a mentally retarded membership.” pg. 476</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Ayn Rand, “The Nature of Government,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Virtue of Selfishness<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objective</i> code of rules.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">This</i> is the task of a government—of a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">proper</i> government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Ayn Rand, “Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Objectivist Newsletter</i>, Feb. 1962</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“An <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">objective</i> law protects a country’s freedom; only a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">non-objective</i> law can give a statist the chance he seeks: a chance to impose <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">his</i> arbitrary will—<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">his</i> policies, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">his</i> decisions, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">his</i> interpretations, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">his</i> enforcement, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">his</i> punishment or favor—on disarmed, defenseless victims.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">John Milton, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Readie and Easie Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth</i> (1660)<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“is it just or reasonable, that most voices against the main end of government should enslave the less number that would be free? More just it is doubtless, if it com to force, that a less number compell a greater to retain, which can be no wrong to them, thir libertie, then that a greater number for the pleasure of thir baseness, compell a less most injuriously to be thir fellow slaves.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">STAMP ACT CONGRESS, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, 19 OCTOBER 1765<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“7<sup>th</sup>. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">WILLIAM BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND (1768)<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">magna carta</i> it is more than once insisted on as the principal bulwark of our liberties.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“And this is a species of knowlege most absolutely necessary for every gentleman in the kingdom; as well because he may be frequently called upon to determine in this capacity the rights of others, his fellow-subjects; as because his own property, his liberty, and his life, depend upon maintaining, in it’s legal force, the constitutional trial by jury.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“This jury is not summoned, and therefore, not appearing at the day, must unavoidably make default. For which reason a compulsive process is now awarded against the jurors, called in the common pleas a write of habeas corpora juratorum, and in the king’s bench a distringas, commanding the sheriff to have their bodies, or to distrein them [i.e. to seize] by their lands and goods, that they may appear upon the day appointed.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“If the sheriff by not an indifferent person; as if he be a party in the suit, or be related by either blood or affinity to either of the parties, he is not then trusted to return the jury; ... [two alternates may eventually be named to choose the jury if other minor officials are also unable to perform the task] And these two, who are called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">elisors</i>, or electors, shall indifferently name the jury, and their return is final.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“Next, as to the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">time of their return</i>: the panel is returned to the court upon the original <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">venire</i>, and the jurors are to be summoned and brought in many weeks afterwards to the trial, whereby the parties may have notice of the jurors, and of their sufficiency or insufficiency, characters, connections, and relations, that so they may be challenged upon just cause; while at the same time by means of the compulsory process (of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">distringas</i> or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">habeas corpora</i>) the cause is not like to be retarded through defect of jurors.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“As the jurors appear, when called, they shall be sworn, unless <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">challenged</i> by either party.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“For, living in the neighbourhood, they were properly the very country, or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pais</i>, to which both parties had appealed; and were supposed to know before-hand the characters of the parties and witnesses, and therefore the better knew what credit to give to the facts alleged in evidence. But this convenience was overballanced by another very natural and almost unavoidable inconvenience; that jurors, coming out of the immediate neighbourhood, would be apt to intermix their prejudices and partialities in the trial of right. And this our law was so sensible of, that it for a long time has been gradually relinquishing this practice; ... the jury being now only to come <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de corpore comitatus</i>, from the body of the county at large, and not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">de vicineto</i>, or from the particular neighbourhood.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“jurors must be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">omni exceptione majores</i>.” [above all exceptions—i.e. they ought not to be challengeable based on relations with the parties, kinship, interest, etc.]</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“We may here again observe, and observing we cannot but admire, how scrupulously delicate and how impartially just the law of England approves itself, in the constitution and frame of a tribunal, thus excellently contrived for the test and investigation of truth; which appears most remarkably, 1. In the avoiding of frauds and secret management, by electing the twelve jurors out of the whole panel by lot. 2. In it’s caution against all partiality and biass, by quashing the whole panel or array, if the officer returning is suspected to be other than indifferent; and repelling particular jurors, if probable cause be shewn of malice or favour to either party. The prodigious multitude of exceptions or challenges allowed to jurors, who are the judges of fact, amounts nearly to the same thing as was practised in the Roman republic, before she lost her liberty: that the select judges should be appointed by the praetor with the mutual consent of the parties.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“Positive proof is always required, where from the nature of the case it appears it might possibly have been had. But, next to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">positive</i> proof, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">circumstantial</i> evidence or the doctrine of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">presumptions</i> must take place: for when the fact itself cannot be demonstrably evinced, that which comes nearest to the proof of the fact is the proof of such circumstances which either <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">necessarily</i>, or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">usually</i>, attend such facts; and these are called presumptions, which are only to be relied upon till the contrary be actually proved.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“the trial by jury: a trial, which besides the other vast advantages which we have occasionally observed in it’s progress, is also as expeditious and cheap, as it is convenient, equitable, and certain;”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“the trial by jury ever has been, and I trust ever will be, looked upon as the glory of the English law.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“only observing for the present, that it is the most transcendent privilege which any subject can enjoy, or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbours and equals. A constitution, that I may venture to affirm has, under providence, secured the just liberties of this nation for a long succession of ages.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“The impartial administration of justice, which secures both our persons and our properties, is the great end of civil society. But if that be entirely entrusted to the magistracy, a select body of men, and those generally selected by the prince or such as enjoy the highest offices in the state, their decisions, in spight of their own natural integrity, will have frequently an involuntary biass towards those of their own rank and dignity: it is not to be expected from human nature, that the few should be always attentive to the interests and good of the many. On the other hand, if the power of judicature were placed at random in the hands of the multitude, their decisions would be wild and capricious, and new rule of action would be every day established in our courts. It is wisely therefore ordered, and the principles and axioms of law, which are general propositions, flowing from abstract reason, and not accommodated to times or to men, should be deposited in the breasts of the judges, to be occasionally applied to such facts as come properly ascertained before them.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“But in settling and adjusting a question of fact, when intrusted to any single magistrate, partiality and injustice have an ample field to range in; either by boldly asserting that to be proved which is not so, or more artfully by suppressing some circumstances, stretching and warping others, and distinguishing away the remainder. Here therefore a competent number of sensible and upright jurymen, chosen by lot from among those of the middle rank, will be found the best investigators of truth, and the surest guardians of public justice.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“twelve indifferent men, not appointed till the hour of trial;”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“This therefore preserves in the hands of the people that share which they ought to have in the administration of public justice, and prevents the encroachments of the more powerful and wealthy citizens. Every new tribunal, erected for the decision of facts, without the intervention of a jury, (whether composed of justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, judges of a court of conscience, or any other standing magistrates) is a step towards establishing aristocracy, the most oppressive of absolute governments.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">JOHN ADAMS, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">DRAFT OF AN ESSAY ON JURIES</i>, 12 FEBRUARY 1771<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“While the People of all the other great Kingdoms in Europe, have been insidiously deprived of their Liberties, it is not unnatural to expect that such as are interested to introduce Arbitrary Government should see with Envy, Detestation and Malice, the People of the British Empire, by their Sagacity and Valour defending theirs, to the present Times.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“There is nothing to distinguish the Government of Great Britain, from that of France, or of Spain, but the Part which the People are by the Constitution appointed to take, in the passing and Execution of Laws.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“In the Administration of Justice too, the People have an important Share, Juries are taken by Lot or by Suffrage from the Mass of the People, and no Man can be condemned of Life, or Limb, or Property or Reputation, without the Concurrence of the Voice of the People.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“As the Constitution requires, that, the popular Branch of the Legislature, should have an absolute Check so as to put a peremptory Negative upon every Act of the Government, it requires that the common People should have as compleat a Controul, as decisive a Negative, in every Judgment of a Court of Judicature. No Wonder then that the same restless Ambition, of aspiring Minds, which is endeavoring to lessen or destroy the Power of the People in Legislation, should attempt to lessen or destroy it, in the Execution of Lawes.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“The English Law obliges no Man to decide a Cause upon Oath against his own Judgment, nor does it oblige any Man to take any Opinion upon Trust, or to pin his faith on the sleve of any mere Man.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE (1776)<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us:<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: ...<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury:<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences:”<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">FEDERAL FARMER, NO. 4, 12 OCTOBER 1787<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“It is essential in every free country, that common people should have a part and share of influence, in the judicial as well as in the legislative department.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A DEMOCRATIC FEDERALIST, 17 OCTOBER 1787<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“but what satisfaction can we expect from a lordly court of justice, always ready to protect the officers of government against the weak and helpless citizen, and who will perhaps sit at the distance of many hundred miles from the place where the outrage was committed?—What refuge shall we then have to shelter us from the iron hand or arbitrary power?—O! my fellow citizens, think of this while it is yet time, and never consent to part with the glorious privilege of trial by jury, but with your lives.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">JAMES WILSON AT THE PENNSYLVANIA RATIFYING CONVENTION, 11 DECEMBER 1787<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdict, but their errors cannot by systematical.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">JAMES IREDELL, “MARCUS,” ANSWERS TO GEORGE MASON’S OBJECTIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION, 1788<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“We certainly shall be always sure of this guard at least upon any such act of folly or insanity in our representatives. They soon would be taught the consequences of sporting with the feelings of a free people.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">FEDERAL FARMER, NO. 16, 20 JANUARY 1788<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“the jury trial is a solid uniform feature in a free government.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">ALEXANDER HAMILTON, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">FEDERALIST </i>NO. 83, 28 MAY 1788<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“But making every deduction for these considerations the trial by jury must still be a valuable check upon corruption. It greatly multiplies the impediments to its success. As matters now stand, it would be necessary to corrupt both court and jury; for where the jury have gone evidently wrong, the court will generally grant a new trial, and it would be in most cases of little use to practice upon the jury, unless the court could be likewise gained. Here then is a double security; and it will readily be perceived that this complicated agency tends to preserve the purity of both institutions. By increasing the obstacles to success it discourages attempts to seduce the integrity of either.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">U.S. CONSTITUTION<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></b>AMENDMENT V</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>AMENDMENT VI</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></i>AMENDMENT VII</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”<o:p></o:p></i></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">THOMAS JEFFERSON TO THE ABBÉ ARNOUX, 19 JULY 1789<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“We think in America that it is necessary to introduce the people into every department of government as far as they are capable of exercising it; and that this is the only way to ensure a long-continued and honest administration of it’s powers.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“They are not qualified to JUDGE questions of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">law</i>; but they are very capable of judging questions of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fact</i>. In the form of JURIES therefore they determine all matters of fact, leaving to the permanent judges to decide the law resulting from those facts.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“It is left therefore to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any biass whatever in any cause, to take upon themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty. Were I called upon to decide whether the people had best be omitted in the Legislative or Judiciary department, I would say it is better to leave them out of the Legislative. The execution of the laws is more important than the making them. However it is best to have the people is all the three departments where that is possible.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;">Charge to Grand Juries by Chief-Justice Jay, 1790<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“Whether any people can long govern themselves in an equal, uniform, and orderly manner, is a question which the advocates for free government justly consider as being exceedingly important to the cause of liberty. This question, like others whose solution depends on facts, can only be determined by experience. It is a question on which many think some room for doubt still remains. Men have had very few fair opportunities of making the experiment; and this is one reason why less progress has been made in the science of government than in almost any other.” pg. 387</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">MIMA QUEEN V. HEPBURN, 1813 – OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in;">“the difficulty of obtaining jurors whose minds are entirely uninfluenced by opinions previously formed is undoubtedly considerable. Yet they ought to be superior to every exception, they ought to stand perfectly indifferent between the parties; and although the bias which was acknowledged in this case might not perhaps have been so strong as to render it positively improper to allow the juror to be sworn on the jury, yet it was desirable to submit the case to those who felt no bias either way;”</div><br />
<div style="mso-element: footnote-list;"><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Magna Carta (1215) on jury trial: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.” Courtesy of Fordham University, [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.asp].</span></div></div><div id="ftn2" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn2;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Lord Macaulay, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The History of England</i>, Chapter XXI “The Summing Up”</span></div></div><div id="ftn3" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn3;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[3]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> The Bill of Rights, 1689, courtesy of Fordham University, [http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/</span></div><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1689billofrights.asp].</span></div></div><div id="ftn4" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn4;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[4]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Stamp Act Congress, Declaration of Rights, 19 October 1765.</span></div></div><div id="ftn5" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn5;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[5]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> “Federal Farmer,” No. 4, 12 October 1787; “A Democratic Federalist,” 17 October 1787; “Federal Farmer,” No. 16, 20 January 1788; Alexander Hamilton, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Federalist </i>No. 16, 28 May 1788.</span></div></div><div id="ftn6" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn6;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[6]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Thomas Jefferson to the Abbé Arnoux, 19 July 1789.</span></div></div><div id="ftn7" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn7;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[7]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mima Queen v. Hepburn</i> (1813).</span></div></div><div id="ftn8" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn8;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[8]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> John Locke, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Second Treatise of Government, </i>Chapter IX (1689); Blackstone, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentaries.</i></span></div></div><div id="ftn9" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn9;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[9]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> John Adams, “Draft of an Essay on Juries,” 12 February 1771.</span></div></div><div id="ftn10" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn10;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[10]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> James Wilson at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 11 December 1787.</span></div></div><div id="ftn11" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn11;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[11]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> William Blackstone, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentaries on the Laws of England, </i>Vol. III (1768).<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><o:p></o:p></i></span></div></div><div id="ftn12" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn12;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[12]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid.</span></div></div><div id="ftn13" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn13;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[13]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Alexis de Tocqueville, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Democracy in America</i>, Volume I, Part II, Chapter VIII “What Moderates the Tyranny of the Majority in the United States”</span></div></div><div id="ftn14" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn14;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[14]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> A note should be made here that not all citizens used to be considered part of the jury pool. Like voting and numerous other subsidiary rights and privileges of citizenship in the past, being part of a jury—a great honor and sign of stature in the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> centuries—used to be restricted (depending on jurisdictions) by gender, race, age, wealth/property, etc. Of course, now that all, or nearly all, of those restrictions have been wiped away, jury service is now open to almost all citizens—children and criminals being notable exceptions. Consequently, perhaps, some of the prestige that used to attach to being a juror, has faded.</span></div></div><div id="ftn15" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn15;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[15]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Blackstone, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Commentaries.</i></span></div></div><div id="ftn16" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn16;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[16]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Locke, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Second Treatise</i>, Chapter XVIII.</span></div></div><div id="ftn17" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn17;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[17]</span></span></span></span></a> <span style="font-size: 10pt;">Jean-Jacques Rousseau, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On Social Contract or Principles of Political Right</i> (1763).</span></div></div><div id="ftn18" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn18;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[18]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Denis Diderot, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Histoire des Deux Indes</i> (1783 edition).</span></div></div><div id="ftn19" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn19;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[19]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Locke, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Second Treatise</i>, Chapter VIII.</span></div></div><div id="ftn20" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn20;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[20]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid.</span></div></div><div id="ftn21" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn21;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[21]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> James Madison, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Federalist</i> No. 51, 6 February 1788</span></div></div><div id="ftn22" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn22;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[22]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ayn Rand, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fountainhead</i>, Part Four, Chapter 18</span></div></div><div id="ftn23" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn23;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[23]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ayn Rand, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Atlas Shrugged</i>, Part Two, Chapter 4 “The Sanction of the Victim”</span></div></div><div id="ftn24" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn24;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[24]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Tocqueville, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Democracy in America</i>.</span></div></div><div id="ftn25" style="mso-element: footnote;"><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=5110398#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn25;" title=""><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[25]</span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> Ibid.</span></div></div></div>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-6363667033858067832011-12-17T23:18:00.000-08:002011-12-17T23:22:18.537-08:00<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-size: large;">Pirates of the 21<sup>st</sup> Century and What to Do About Them: SOPA and the Search for an Anti-Piracy Strategy in the Information Age<o:p></o:p></span></span></b><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Both houses of Congress are currently taking up Bills (PROTECT-IP [Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act] in the Senate; SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act] in the House) to bring the Constitution’s grant of power in Article One, Section Eight (“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”) up to date in a world of easy file sharing and copyright infringement. The language could not be more unequivocal—“exclusive Right”—and the topic received no debate in the Constitutional convention. The proposal, as they say, was a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">fait accompli</i> and in an age of scribblers, pamphleteers, and all manner of inventors (<a href="http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/ss/Franklin_invent.htm">Benjamin Franklin</a> was only the most prolific of <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers.html">Convention attendees</a>) it is not hard to figure out why.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">There can be no serious question as to the right of content producers (the catchy 21<sup>st</sup> century way to describe artists, writers, and inventors) to earn whatever the marketplace will bear for their productions. And there can be no serious question as to the right of Congress to legislate for their protection. Yet, the anti-SOPA polemicists have attempted to argue just those very points. In my view, this discredits them almost entirely and leaves the intellectual debate open to the pro-SOPA advocates who are themselves advocating enforcement mechanisms that leave much to be desired and—contrary to the diatribes of the other side—centralizes great power in the Attorney General’s office, not the entertainment industry. In fact, the government is very open about that aspect of SOPA. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Pallante">Maria A. Pallante</a>, the Register of Copyrights, <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Pallante%2011162011.pdf">testified</a> before Congress to this effect, saying: “The response provided by SOPA is serious and comprehensive. It requires all key members of the online ecosystem, including service providers, search engines, payment processors, and advertising networks, to play a role in protecting copyright interests—an approach I endorse. Combating online infringement requires focus and commitment. It should be obvious that we cannot have intermediaries working at cross-purposes.” Here is the interesting bit: “SOPA is also measured. It appropriately provides much broader tools and flexibility to the Attorney General than it provides to copyright owners. This is a sound policy choice at this time. The Department of Justice has experience fighting online infringers, will use resources carefully [HA!], must exercise prosecutorial discretion in bringing actions, and must plead its case to the court and obtain a court-issued order before proceeding. Put another way, while the copyright industries are extremely important (and certainly a point of pride with respect to the U.S. economy), SOPA recognizes that many sectors rely on, invest in, and contribute to the success of the Internet.” And finally: “It is for this reason that SOPA puts only limited tools in the hands of copyright owners, and provides the Attorney General with the sole authority to seek orders against search engines and Internet service providers.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Pallante even agrees with the harebrained paranoia directed at the legitimate owners of stolen material: “Unlike the Attorney General, however, copyright owners would not be able to block domain names or websites or otherwise affect the underpinnings of the Internet. Nor does SOPA permit monetary relief for copyright owners. By targeting sites dedicated to infringement and permitting injunctive relief only, it limits the incentive for copyright owners to overreach.” A representative piece of absurdist non-sense from the “other side” can be found on the reliably misguided Huffington Post, where Dean Baker—whose chief claim to expertise is that he is something called a “Progressive”—<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/congress-online-piracy-_b_1129805.html?ref=technology&ir=Technology">writes</a>: “While the name [Stop Online Pirarcy Act] may lead the public to believe that Congress is trying to keep our email pure and our computer screens safe, the real story is that the 1 percent are again trying to rig the rules so that they get as many dollars as possible from the rest of us.” The Bill, of course, does not aim at either of those things, which means Baker is either a lout or engaging in an ineffective bit of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reductio ad absurdum.</i> Also, the property owner has an absolute right to charge whatever he likes, just as the potential consumers have just as much right to pay him what he asks—even though they would have gladly paid double—or not buy from him at all at any price.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The biggest problem with the SOPA debate among politicians and pundits is a fundamental misunderstanding—by nearly everyone writing about the topic—of what is actually going on in the marketplace and the government’s obligations to property owners. And that is what is being discussed here, property owners. The government guarantees limited monopolies to individuals, both real and legal (i.e. corporations), for their artistic productions and inventions so that if I write the great American novel, I am the one who can sell it to whomever for whatever price I am willing and able to negotiate and will not have to worry about everyone else printing off “free” copies or downloading it without paying me or to whomever I license the rights. The reason the pharmaceutical companies are backing SOPA is obvious—they see it as their general interest to bolster all copyright and patent protections because without them, their ability to sell and develop products will be minimized if not completely obliterated. People in countries other than the United States, whose government either buy their drugs for them or break international patent protections and manufacture them illegally might scoff—but they are free-riding off of the innovation which the rule of patent law makes possible in the United States.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">But, SOPA seeks to shift the tough game of policing patent and copyright violations off of the shoulders of the property owners—where it has traditionally always belonged, as in famous cases surrounding such giants as <a href="http://inventors.about.com/od/bstartinventors/a/telephone.htm">Alexander Graham Bell</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents">Thomas Edison</a>—to the Attorney General. In addition to that innovation, SOPA also seeks to change the focus away from violators (many of the biggest violators are overseas) of copyright and patent laws to the intermediary, U.S. based companies that presumably unwittingly and unknowingly are used to transact the illegal business of online piracy. This means companies like Google, Facebook, and Paypal. Under this scheme, the Justice Department will act as a go-between for property owners and the intermediary facilitators by presenting evidence to a Judge and seeking injunctions on companies that fail to respond to five-day warning notices that they are in violation of the act because their users are violating someone’s or some company’s property rights. What is actually bothersome about SOPA is not, as Mr. Baker contends, that “the problem seen by the top executives at Disney and the other promoters of the SOPA is that they want to make more [money],” or as Michael Hiltzik <a href="http://www.latimes.com/la-fi-hiltzik-20111211%2c0%2c315652.column?track=latiphoneapp">writes</a> in the L.A. Times, “Right there you can see that SOPA would place a nuclear weapon in the hands of copyright holders to use against websites they don’t like,” but that it passes off responsibility to protect intellectual property rights from the owners to the taxpayers. Also, instead of trying to come up with ways to get at the true international culprits of most of the large-scale piracy on the internet, property-owning backers of SOPA are trying to hamstring social networking and commerce facilitating companies and websites that criminals are abusing as a miniscule part of their otherwise totally legitimate business.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Do the intermediaries have a responsibility when they are made aware of their being made accessories to crimes? Of course, though under the current law, passed in 1998, they are exempted from liability--see <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21540234">this helpful piece</a> on the matter. If they are notified in writing by the property owners and do nothing to disassociate themselves with criminals, then they are just as much a party to the criminal activity as if they themselves were perpetrating it. Should they be more pro-active? Probably, yes. But the only way to force them is to make it a legal and fiscal nightmare to not be more pro-active. One way the government could help is to define the law better and make it easier from property-owners to sue intermediaries in court when the offender lives in another jurisdiction and the intermediary makes no good faith effort to stop itself from being used for criminal activity.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">When a person steals—let us be clear, they are stealing—someone else’s intellectual property, the proper recourse is to take that person to court and get damages and legal expenses awarded to them. If the government wishes to stiffen criminal penalties for copyright and patent violators, then the Congress should do that. Certainly some stiff financial penalties and real jail time would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction. This is not a victimless crime. Unlike recreational drug use and prostitution, intellectual property theft raises the prices of artistic productions for all of us. Beyond that, it drives producers from a marketplace where their ability to profit from their efforts is greatly reduced. The resulting cultural loss is incalculable. But more fundamentally—it violates a sacrosanct right a man has to the products of his own mind and the rewards that come from them when he offers them in trade to others.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The anti-SOPA people seem more concerned with <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/post/sopas-ugly-message-to-the-world-about-america-and-internet-innovation/2010/12/20/gIQATlhEYN_blog.html">pretending</a> that the issues at stake are, somehow, about censorship—as if protection of property from theft could ever be a tool of censorship, which is the governmental suppression of intellectual property. A classic misrepresentation of the principles and rights at stake in this argument appeared on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Economist</i> magazine’s <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21540281">blog</a>: “The battle over SOPA is a fight between two hugely creative forces. The content companies want to protect a business that is the core of modern culture; the software companies are determined to defend the innovative power of an industry that has transformed the world in the past few decades. Tension between them is inevitable; but a redrafted law could surely deal fairly with both.” First of all, the only people with any rights at stake are the property owners. Software companies are not in any tension with them, unless they are claiming a non-existent right to facilitate intellectual property theft and be blameless even if they know who is doing it, where, when and how. This is a “right” no property respecting society could ever countenance. Ironically, embracing such a ridiculous notion would make Google’s own highly protected secrets—the code for the search engine for instance—as open to non-protection and theft as anything else.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The government clearly has a role in making sure that the copyrights and patents it grants are respected as inviolately as is any real estate anyone owns in the United States. Domestically, it already does that relatively well—keeping in mind that rights violations are always going to occur and always have since 1789—but internationally the government seems feckless and weak. That needs to end and the penalties need to be Draconian. Any government that actively subverts copyrights and patents ought to be thoroughly condemned and isolated internationally—particularly in such areas as medicine. The damage of violating patents of that nature is nightmarishly horrific when one contemplates the eradication of diseases we have seen in just the last century. No one, particularly no highly trained technical expert, can, should, or will work for free or for any salary other than what a free and rights protecting marketplace rightly rewards for highly valuable and beneficial works and inventions. To expect otherwise is to live in a fantasyland that never existed and which will never exist. Man uses his mind to reason, to live for his own sake, to create values and trade them with others. This is how he survives—indeed, how he prospers. Some men have a specialized knowledge that allows them to create tremendous values that nearly everyone might want or benefit from. Those men, or the companies who have license to their work, ought not to be denied the remunerative benefits associated with those values merely because everyone might want or need them. Without a pre-existing guarantee to reap the tremendous rewards, the value would almost certainly have never been created in the first place. This seems too easily forgotten in a world where people like Dean Baker glibly prattle on about a manipulative “1 percent.” That is tremendously unfortunate. It obscures the creative process by which the world’s billions came into being and are—by and large—fed, clothed, and vaccinated against diseases that routinely wiped out untold numbers of people for millennia--see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox">here</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio">here</a> for just two of the more prominent examples.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">But we ought not to try to make the Attorney General of the United States the copyright bully of the world, either. Property owners are obligated to protect their property by filing suit against domestic violators, by notifying third parties that they are being exposed to civil litigation by bad actors, and by then calling in the government through the courts to enforce their rights on all concerned. That system has served the republic well for more than two centuries and the internet—despite all the glazed over “wave of the future” befuddlement—does not fundamentally alter the right and wrong of the situation. Property owners ought instead to demand, and receive, easier mechanisms of bringing suit against those stealing or knowingly facilitating the theft of their property. Property owners ought instead to demand, and receive, stiffer criminal penalties and fines against the same. And property owners ought instead to demand a vigorous international campaign, led by the Federal Government, against countries that flout copyright and patent protections up to and including the suspension of all intercourse with such regimes. But, at the end of the day, all American property owners ought to understand that their only true protection is the American people and their government. Engaging in trade with a property destroying murder machine like China is a dubious proposition at best and it strains credulity in the vein of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc">Claude Reins in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Casablanca</i></a> to accept that any of them are truly shocked that their property rights are destroyed and disregarded in such places. All they can truly expect is that the government will protect their rights absolutely in the portions of the globe where that government has an established legal supremacy.</div>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-67061271722063775602011-11-15T22:48:00.000-08:002011-11-16T14:04:53.061-08:00<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Gary Johnson Either Needs to Take the Gloves Off or Drop Out</strong></span><br />
<br />
Former New Mexico Governor, and erstwhile GOP Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson has filed <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/15/johnson-files-complaint-with-the-fec-and">complaints</a> with the FEC and FCC about his being ignored by the recent GOP Presidential Debates. But, with the current crop of eight candidates, some of whom (Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman for instance) are barely at 1% in all recent national polls according to <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx">Gallup</a> and <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html">Real Clear Politics,</a> some already see too many players on the stage. Gary Johnson is, of course, claiming that his exclusion from the debates bears responsibility for his low visibility and low poll numbers (when they even exist).<br />
<br />
<br />
But how credible is that in 2011? The voters he is appealing to are an Internet savvy lot who are currently giving Texas Congressman Ron Paul a very prominent national platform from which to speak. They are the most likely to be aware of Governor Johnson's candidacy and the most likely to be able to examine him closely on the Internet and at his <a href="http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front">campaign website</a> specifically. Ever since 2004, and the unlikely rise of Internet candidate Howard Dean (a similarly little known governor from a small population state), the world wide web has been the means of catapulting relative unknowns with little money into the prime time. That, and book sales, were directly responsible for the meteoric rise of President--then candidate and Senator--Obama as well as Johnson's more obvious roadblock, Ron Paul.<br />
<br />
<br />
Beyond that, Johnson's central claim--that he's being boxed out by the media--is simply untrue. For a candidate polling as marginally as Johnson he's been on television (free air time on a national level) numerous times. A quick search shows him on Fox News <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1256928791001/gov-gary-johnson-talks-presidential-elections">here</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnpzB_-ZIPg">here</a>, and <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1219075195001/special-report-online-gary-johnson">here</a>; CNN <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFf4P20cWmU">here</a>; MSNBC <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCrAbLNTDtk&feature=related">here</a>; and Comedy Central <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWpOtDrKx7g">here.</a> Obviously, this is just a sample, he's been on TV bemoaning the fact he's not on TV many additional times. He was even included in one major <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdEENHOQksY">national debate</a> despite polling in the Thaddeus McCotter basement. Keep in mind, it was this very same debate that sent Rick Perry into the wilderness and brought Herman Cain into the fore.<br />
<br />
<br />
Governor Johnson's real problems are two-fold. The first is that his major competitor for libertarian leaning Republicans is Ron Paul, a man with whom he has no substantial policy disagreements (except, of course, on abortion rights; Paul is against choice, Johnson supports reproductive autonomy). Despite their being nearly simpatico on the <a href="http://scottholleran.com/blog/20110821-interview-with-gary-johnson">major issues domestically and internationally</a>, Ron Paul--as I have indicated <a href="http://alexandermarriott.blogspot.com/2011/10/calling-mediawhen-is-ron-paul-going-to.html">elsewhere</a>--is a severely flawed candidate. Anyone who actually took Paul seriously--and I think it's obvious the only person who has an interest in doing so at the moment is Gary Johnson--would have no trouble at all in gathering evidence for a compelling case for why Paul is unqualified for the position he currently holds, let alone the Presidency. And, yet, when given national platforms to appeal to Paul's supporters (most of whom are ignorant of their candidate's serious flaws), Governor Johnson routinely fails to do so--going so far as to compliment Paul with a hypothetical Vice-Presidential nomination at his debate appearance.<br />
<br />
<br />
That is Johnson's second problem: he has been far too amiable and aloof from the realities of politics and Presidential campaigns. It is not always advisable to go negative in an election campaign--but when the man blocking you from being in the debates by monopolizing the voters most likely to support you and sucking up all the available air in the room is a moral Pygmy like Ron Paul, you have to go for the jugular. It is, literally, Governor Johnson's only hope for sparking his campaign and gaining the poll numbers he needs to get his foot in the door. You cannot win a disputed Presidential nomination by being a horrendous jerk (see Howard Dean) but you have no hope of doing so being Mr. Rogers. Either Johnson bites the bullet and takes on Ron Paul directly and splits his supporters, thereby getting himself into the debates where he can appeal to the rest of the GOP caucus and primary voters, or he gives up now and saves the time, money, and effort of continuing his current exercise in futility for another couple of months.Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-42901252759672379892011-11-04T20:08:00.000-07:002011-11-04T23:12:19.865-07:00<strong><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: x-large;">The Curse of the Internet: Fake Historical Quotes</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">By Alexander Marriott</span></strong><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The internet is, undoubtedly, one of the greatest inventions of all time. It has revolutionized the ways in which commerce occurs, the ways in which information is accessed and exchanged, the ways in which people find romance, and the ways in which people read, generate, and comment on the news. These are merely a few of the myriad ways in which the internet daily alters and enhances the quality of the lives of anyone who has the ability and patience to access and use it.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Of course, like any inanimate object, the internet is subject to the motives and purposes of the people using it. And, like most everything else, those who are either willfully nefarious or woefully oblivious have been using the internet in ways that make professional historians cringe. Here I mean to fabricate and disseminate fake quotes attributed to a wide variety of historical actors. The motives for those doing this knowingly are diverse--they are from all political persuasions and all philosophical and religious schools of thought. Most of the people spreading these fake quotes on the internet, however, are well meaning people who think they have found authoritative succor from one of history's giants. Or, sadly for the professors amongst us, they are hapless undergraduate students in history classes who have yet to fully grasp the proper methodology involved in vetting and evaluating primary and secondary sources. That historians are so sensitive to these matters and other people who majored in something else seemingly are not suggests a disturbing lack of formal training in other disciplines about how to evaluate evidence. But that's a matter for a different day.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">The desire to have quotes on topics one cares about is natural, but it is symptomatic of the propensity to error and fallacious reasoning; namely arguing from authority--</span></span><a href="http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">argumentum ad verecundiam</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">--and arguing from popularity (in this case, the popularity of the Founding Fathers)--</span><a href="http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">argumentum ad populum</span></span></a><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">. Let me be clear, evidentiary exposition from qualified authorities not taken out of context can be valid <em>supports </em>for an argument. But, quotes, by themselves, or out of context, are not arguments. FAKE quotes, are not anything at all except evidence that the person doing the quoting is careless and lazy—and, by implication, possibly dishonest and unreliable.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">I have personally come across a number of quotes in online contexts--many on Facebook, from well meaning friends--that are obvious fakes. There are just some quotations that strain credulity. For instance, this "famous quote" from a sad Woodrow Wilson:</span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><div align="center" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world — no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -- Wilson is alleged to have said this circa 1916 in regret for having championed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913</span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
</span><a href="http://www.salon.com/2007/12/21/woodrow_wilson_federal_reserve/"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Salon</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> has already done the legwork to show that this quote is fraudulently misleading. But one only has to read the opening pages of Allan H. Meltzer's </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Federal-Reserve-1913-1951/dp/0226520005/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1320447075&sr=8-2"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">History of the Federal Reserve</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> to gain a sense of just how proud Wilson was of the Federal Reserve for having removed the role of lender of last resort from the hands of private bankers like J. P. Morgan. The hysteria and nonsense that Ron Paul and other prominent pseudo-historians and actual anti-Semites have stirred up around banking and the Federal Reserve in particular has led to works of insanity like </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImefSYpySwA&feature=player_embedded&fb_source=message"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">this</span></span></a><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">. Every quote that I checked in that video is a fake--and I didn't check them all, it's too crazy to put in that much effort after the first half dozen or so flunk out.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Traveling back in time to my own period of study and interest, let's take just two of the Founding Fathers who have cottage industries of fake quotations spewing forth from them--or mangled quotations, another popular method of attaching quasi-legitimacy to an argument--Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Some Franklin quotes about which historians are skeptical (rightly) way very well be real. For instance, </span></span><a href="http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">James McHenry's notes</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;"> include an anecdote of an alleged exchange that occurred between Franklin and an anonymous woman as the delegates left Independence Hall having just signed the Constitution in September 1787. The woman allegedly asked Franklin if they had signed off on a monarchy or a republic and Franklin, according to McHenry, quipped back, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Of course, the quote is perfect and vintage Franklin--short and profound. It's the Poor Richard homespun that the legend of Franklin has enshrined solidly from his own day straight down to ours almost unscathed. But, for historians, there are a couple of issues that prevent them from putting much stock in this quote. For one, it's an anecdote reported by one man in an undated entry in his notes that was not widely known of until, in the 1930's, Max Farrand issued a new series of volumes on the Constitutional Convention and the State Ratification Debates--and then only as a footnote. For another, it's a little odd that a random woman would sling this particular question at Franklin. Few people--even in the Convention, where there was far more trepidation about democracy than among the people of democratic Philadelphia and democratic Pennsylvania--expected the Convention would produce anything except revisions to the Articles of Confederation, let alone the stupendous usurpation of a monarchy. It would be tantamount to asking Franklin if he were walking on Mars or Earth as he exited the building. This is not to say the exchange did not occur as McHenry remembered it--it may very well have--but it would still be extremely peculiar all the same. The sentiment of the answer, however, is perfectly consistent with the widely acknowledged fragility of the republican form of government--among the very paramount reasons for the Convention's meeting in the first place. So the quote, real or not, has found a resonance in popular, historically minded political culture that is not easy to dislodge--as seen </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Republic-America-Trusting-Americans/dp/1595230807/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320443305&sr=8-1"><span style="font-size: large;">here</span></a><span style="font-size: large;"> in this recent work from Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Another famously mangled and misused fake Franklin quote goes something like this: "<span class="commentbody">Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Of course, Franklin in the 1750's--in the context of the French and Indian war raging in western Pennsylvania, and the confrontation of pacifist Quakers with the those who wanted to fight the war, including Franklin, in the state legislature--did say this when he <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html"><span style="color: windowtext;">wrote</span></a> to the Governor: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." As Michelle Malkin points out <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/2006/01/25/dowdifying-ben-franklin/"><span style="color: windowtext;">here</span></a>, the differences in the quotes are critically important to getting at the contextual accuracy of Franklin's meaning. If we place the quote in the actual paragraph it occurs in--a message to the Governor on behalf of the Pennsylvania Legislature concerning the failure to properly arm and supply the frontiersmen doing the fighting and being chased eastward, the meaning becomes fairly plain:</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<br />
<div align="center" style="text-align: center;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">"In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it."<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">To see the entire message, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Papers of Benjamin Franklin</i> are online (like most other primary documents collections from such prolifically famous statesmen of this time period) </span><a href="http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">here</span></span></a> (the reply is from November 11, 1755)<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span class="commentbody">From the uncertain and the mangled, there are the outright frauds. For instance, a very popular Franklin fake goes like this: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." One need not be a historical expert to smell this as a fake immediately. First of all--the Founders did not believe that rights were "given" by documents; rather, rights existed <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a priori</i> as facts of man's nature and the nature of the universe. Hence, their unalienability. Secondly, Franklin was present for the drafting of the Declaration of Independence--playing a crucial role on the committee as a lead editor of Jefferson's original draft--where the phrase "pursuit of happiness" occurs and not, as the "quote" seems to suggest, the U.S. Constitution. Franklin was also present, of course, for the drafting and debate of the U.S. Constitution as was already discussed above. The Constitution does not recapitulate that phrase; in fact, the Constitution as presented from Philadelphia contained no Bill of Rights at all. Furthermore, Franklin died before the amendments that became known as the Bill of Rights were ratified and became a part of the Constitution and, of course, none of the proposed amendments recapitulated the phrase "pursuit of happiness." So, on the face of it, this quote is highly suspicious. On top of that, like most fake quotes, it has no attribution that would allow a curious person to look it up and find out more of its context for themselves. This is the hallmark of every two-bit fake on the internet--but just having attribution guarantees nothing. Fortunately for those curious about this particular "quote," the blog of </span><em><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/historical_inaccuracies?page=1"><span style="color: windowtext;">The Economist</span></a></em><span class="commentbody"> has already debunked it, along with a popular "quote" of Thomas Jefferson (“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite").<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Aside from the above, Jefferson is mistakenly "quoted" all the time for every conceivable end--religious and atheist, right and left. I have recently debunked two lousy fakes passed along as real wisdom of the sage of Monticello from Facebook friends of diametrically opposing worldviews. From what I would kindly describe as a leftist friend came this gem "from" Jefferson:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span><div align="center" style="text-align: center;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [these banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power [of currency] should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."</span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">This is a hodgepodge combination of fake and out of context "quotes." According to the team working out of </span><a href="http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/private-banks-quotation"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Monticello</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">--which has been diligent in hunting down these fake "quotes" from Jefferson--Jefferson said some things partially similar to this in private letters and some things not at all. As you can see from their excellent discussion of the sourcing for this "quote," most of it is simply imaginary--the glaring giveaway is the sudden appearance of the words "inflation" and "deflation." Neither was used in Jefferson's day. Also, words like that—so seemingly prophetic of today’s problems—are classic signs, I have found, of the Ron Paul, Lyndon LaRouche, anti-banking conspiratorial fringe. Those working in that backwater are some of the worst offenders when it comes to creating, and then running through an echo chamber over and over and over again, fake quotes. When I pointed out that this quote was bogus and provided the link to Monticello that explains how and why, the literal response I received from some person I am not familiar with was: "fake or not... it is the truth..." A stunningly honest admission that the entire hunt for a confirming authority quotation is all a bit of a canard for many would-be internet historians.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">From a friend much more to the right, came this, perhaps the most highly exposed fake quote around right now; from the alleged lips of Thomas Jefferson: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Again, the historians at Monticello have already taken care of this quote and have been nice enough to </span><a href="http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-governments-fear-people-there-libertyquotation"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">announce</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> their work to the world, but people evidently cannot be troubled to look into the authenticity of quotes. Judge Andrew Napolitano, a </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPZIKFuvfsI"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">sadly misinformed</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> blowhard from the Fox Business Channel and the Fox News Channel (where he incredibly serves as the "Senior Judicial Analyst"), uses this quote like it's going out of style both on TV and in private speaking engagements. For instance, see </span><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2659761702659115038"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">this one</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> (where other fake quotes abound) and skip to the 29:40 mark for this particular quote delivered as the stirring conclusion to a speech otherwise laced with deluded fantasy.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">It is remarkable how much people 1) wish to wrap their ideas and opinions up in the mantle of some historical authority and 2) how little time they spend in actually learning about the history involved and reading the actual primary sources that would allow them to do so with some manner of skill. It is not as if the sources are locked away and hidden from people. Aside from manuscripts that are held in </span><a href="http://www.americanantiquarian.org/"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">institutions</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">--academic or otherwise--that have some manner of procedure in place for anyone to come and have a look at the collections, a great deal is available digitally (and free) at the </span><a href="http://www.loc.gov/index.html"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Library of Congress</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">, </span><a href="http://books.google.com/bkshp?hl=en&tab=wp"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Google Books</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">, and any number of University or research institution affiliated websites--like this </span><a href="http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">one</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> or this </span><a href="http://avalon.law.yale.edu/default.asp"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">one</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">. Beyond that, public and local college and University libraries have most or all of the published papers of figures like Franklin, Hamilton, </span><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Washington</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">, </span><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/index.html"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Jefferson</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">, </span><a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/madison_papers/"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Madison</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">, <a href="http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/malhome.html">Lincoln</a> etc. (and in the links you can see all their papers digitized from the Library of Congress) and a great number of primary sources are published for public consumption from presses like the </span><a href="http://www.loa.org/"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Library of America</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> and the </span><a href="http://oll.libertyfund.org/"><span style="color: windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Liberty Fund</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">. Spreading false quotations unknowingly is an inexcusable error that should not occur--it's simply too easy to verify a quote for it to happen. But, since it seems to be a recurring issue, below are my easy to follow guidelines for evaluating quotes that you don't know for sure are authentic.<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span class="commentbody">If the quote seems very prophetic of specific modern concretes, then be wary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span class="commentbody">If the quote has no attribution, be very wary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span class="commentbody">If the attribution is impossible for you to hunt down, DO NOT repost until you have done more work.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span class="commentbody">If you quote the quotation into a Google search and all that pops up are fringe and wacko websites peddling conspiracy theories—reposting the alleged quote <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad nauseum</i>—you almost certainly have a fake.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
</span><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5)<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span class="commentbody">Only repost a quotation when you know for sure that it is authentic and you are familiar enough with the context in which the quote came about to explain why, where and when it was either said or written.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
</span><div style="margin-left: 1in; mso-list: l0 level2 lfo1; tab-stops: list 1.0in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="commentbody"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">a.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span></span></span><span class="commentbody">Do not be afraid to demand such information from those who post or repost unattributed quotations.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span><br />
<span class="commentbody"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">Finally, you do not need a famous person to validate your arguments for anything. It can be a nice touch, it can add a flourish to your conclusion or lend brilliant phraseology to your point, but at the end of the day—you and George Washington can both be wrong for the same reasons. But if you wish to quote someone, please be mindful of context and accuracy—because there is no easier way to upend any argument that relies on authoritative quotations than to point out that either 1) it’s a fake, or 2) you’ve horribly misrepresented the meaning of the quote in question.</span></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-83538548928225241272011-11-04T09:34:00.000-07:002011-11-04T09:34:51.648-07:00<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Fake Internet Quotes and Funny T-Shirts</span></strong><br />
<br />
There are numerous fake internet quotes attributed to various founding fathers. The two biggest victims seem to be Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. I will have a thorough post on this shortly. In the mean time, check out these awesome t-shirts!<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customize/product2.aspx?number=589897617">http://www.cafepress.com/cp/customize/product2.aspx?number=589897617</a></div><div align="center"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--L2S-wQUGyc/TrQT9k8RM5I/AAAAAAAAADM/0z6gQHa8Yag/s1600/kitchener.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320px" ida="true" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--L2S-wQUGyc/TrQT9k8RM5I/AAAAAAAAADM/0z6gQHa8Yag/s320/kitchener.jpg" width="320px" /></a></div><div align="center"><br />
</div>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5110398.post-48088268238961032972011-10-30T13:11:00.000-07:002011-11-06T15:24:35.519-08:00<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: large;">Calling the Media—When is Ron Paul Going to Have to Answer?<o:p></o:p></span></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">By Alexander Marriott<o:p></o:p></b></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Among the contenders for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination polling in or near the double digits only one sticks out as a true ugly duckling: Texas Congressman, and former OB/GYN, Ron Paul. Often pointed to as the “libertarian” candidate, Dr. Paul quixotically (heroically to his admirers) zeroes in on monetary policy, the existence of the Federal Reserve, and the “business cycle,” while his opponents debate the merits of their gimmicky tax/economy/jobs plans. But his most jarringly discordant notes come in foreign policy—particularly concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Dr. Paul raised eyebrows during a <a href="http://video.foxnews.com/v/1106063162001/ron-paul-why-shouldnt-iran-want-a-nuclear-weapon/">GOP Presidential debate in August</a> when he shrugged off the notion that Iran might get a nuclear weapon, comparing the theocratic regime to the Communist regimes of the old Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. He followed this bravura performance with an <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujl_sTPZPLY">appearance</a> on Fox News where he blandly acceded to the notion that Israel had nothing to fear from an Iranian nuke because: “The Iranians don’t have a tradition of sending troops and invading countries 6000 miles from their shore and occupying another country. [As] a matter of fact, they’re pretty respectful of their borders....” Further, he has advocated a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/paul-offers-friendship-with-iran-says-nuclear-weapons-program-blown-out-of-proportion/2011/11/06/gIQAxlPcsM_story.html">"friendship"</a> with a country that the <a href="http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/170479.pdf">State Department</a> (see overview on pg. 150-151) and every terror expert in the world has indicted for numerous attacks on American interests and allies around the world--calling <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/an-inside-look-at-the-base-where-iran-is-developing-nuclear-weapons-1.393920">reports</a> of Iranian nuclear ambitions "blown out of proportion."</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">The world has waited with baited breath after the revelation of the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States in Washington, D.C., for Congressman Paul to revise his, some might say naive, position on the threat posed to Israel and the United States by a terrorist sponsoring Islamic theocracy. Instead, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OGd6frfYBU">Paul told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer</a>: “I think it’s mostly war propaganda. They’ve been itching to go to war against Iran for a long, long time. This is exactly what they did leading up to the war in Iraq, and the danger was not there.”</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Why is this important? Isn’t this all simply the classic expression of libertarian non-intervention? Perhaps. But Ron Paul has a history, curious associations, and a veritable army of “interesting” supporters. Without coming right out in a poor imitation of Emile Zola, how exactly does a major presidential candidate with so much anti-Semitic baggage—<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html">past and present</a>—glide unscathed from one media interview and debate to another? Paul is the only major candidate sporting a foreign policy which guarantees—if he is mistaken about Iran—the destruction of seven million Jews. A devastating exposé is potentially right there. Where is the media?</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">First, the history. In 2008, when Paul’s bid for the GOP nomination really garnered nation-wide support and attention, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man">The New Republic</a> </i>and <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Reason</i> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Magazine</i></a> covered a disturbing story about Congressman Paul’s writings from the 1980’s and early 1990s that contained a host of racist remarks and played into a number of insidious conspiracy theories. Congressman Paul’s excuses for these newsletters that were sent out under his name was that they had been ghost-written by some unknown aid—most likely the loathsome <a href="http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html">Lew Rockwell</a>. The story did not progress much from there. Paul went on to rail against the Fed and Lew Rockwell continued to give him advice. (See also David Harsanyi's more recent piece in <em><a href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/24/the-ron-paul-delusion">Reason Magazine</a></em>.) Jeffrey Lord, at the American Spectator, has been among those at the forefront <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re/">here</a>, and <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/07/santorums-moment-the-reagan-li/">here</a>, in exposing the serpentine paths of Paul's anti-semitic connections. They are in-depth analyses of the beliefs of Dr. Paul and his associates and I cannot recommend them enough to people looking for more information about these issues.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Everyone has surely noticed Ron Paul’s <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8">passionate obsession</a> with the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/dp/B004IEA4DM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320002494&sr=8-1">Federal Reserve</a>. The innocent interpretation of this is that Paul is a true libertarian and opposes central banking, fiat money, and government controlled interest rates. This is all probably true. But there is something else going on with Paul’s attack on the Fed that seems to go unnoticed. Delve into an <a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?326823-The-Elite-Plan-for-a-New-World-Social-Order">internet message board of Paul supporters</a> and you cannot fail to see references to “New World Order” and people bemoaning international financiers and bankers. Eventually, you will be directed to a book by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin">G. Edward Griffin</a>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Creature from Jekyll Island</i> (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Edward-Griffin/dp/091298645X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320002755&sr=1-1">5th ed., 2010</a>).</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EyZgEjwoAVw/Tq2lbJ5w5rI/AAAAAAAAAC8/x9vC9um9BqE/s1600/001.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EyZgEjwoAVw/Tq2lbJ5w5rI/AAAAAAAAAC8/x9vC9um9BqE/s320/001.JPG" width="240" /></a>Those who used to be glued to Glenn Beck’s pseudo-history show on Fox News might remember that during an episode in <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRQtgZGCsBA">March 2011</a>, Beck gave this book and its author central prominence. Why does this matter? Aside from having no pretensions to being a historian, and aside from setting up a publisher to print his own book (thus avoiding pesky things like peer review), Mr. Griffin’s opus has chapters entitled “Building the New World Order,” “The Rothschild Formula,” and “The Creature Swallows Congress.” And, when you get to the back cover, what do you find just above the blurb of famed financial historian Willie Nelson (yes, THAT Willie Nelson)? Why, none other than Ron Paul and this outlandish praise: “A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.” Other acknowledged experts in the field include a man from "New Jersy" and world-renowned banking expert, "Stan." On the right is a picture of the back cover of the most recent edition of the book.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Forget the goofy chapter titles and bizarre lingo (“the Mandrake mechanism,” for instance), what is the trouble with this book and author? Take the author first. Griffin is also “famous” for propagating a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/World-Without-Cancer-Story-Vitamin/dp/0912986190/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320002993&sr=1-1">theory of cancer</a> (he’s also not an M.D., in fact his credentials are a Bachelors in Speech and Communication along with the exalted rank of certified financial planner) as a metabolic disorder. Why is it not cured? You guessed it, a cabal-run conspiracy of medical professionals and drug companies does not want to see their livelihood--cancer--eradicated by a cheap cure. If you want to review Griffin's <a href="http://www.realityzone.com/healnut.html">healthcare bookstore</a>, you can also learn about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccinations. For a scientifically peer-reviewed overview of why Mr. Griffin, an untrained non-specialist, is wrong about this, see Dr. Victor Herbert's <a href="http://www.ajcn.org/content/32/5/1121.long">rebuttal</a> in the May, 1979 <em>American Journal of Clinical Nutrition</em>.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">When he’s not engaged in that quackery, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVCvzGr7h1g">he’s off searching</a> for the resting place of Noah’s Ark. Yes, that Noah’s Ark. Oh yes, he also once upon a time wrote speeches for George Wallace’s vice-presidential nominee. Yes, that George Wallace. Don’t worry though, <a href="http://www.realityzone.com/gegresponds.html">according to Griffin</a> (while all of the material Griffin puts in this omnibus post is interesting, scroll down to "GRIFFIN "EXPOSED" AS SPEECHWRITER FOR GENERAL LEMAY!"), Wallace was merely “widely perceived as a Southern racist.” That’s right; it was everyone else’s fault for observing reality. To have a look at Griffin's conspiracy-pandering immediately after his failure to elect George Wallace to the Presidency, see <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4vTHwvioZ4">this</a> (particularly from minute eight onwards).</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">As for the book. No undergraduate history major would ever get away with writing one page of Griffin’s tome--primary sources are virtually non-existent and secondary sources are woefully outdated. This is tantamount to a criminal act against the practice of history given the nature of the narrative accusations contained in the book. He is constantly discussing things he has no personal knowledge of without any references. His bibliography looks impressive—but it’s missing seemingly very important books given his topic. He writes about the Rothschilds but ignores <a href="http://www.amazon.com/House-Rothschild-Moneys-Prophets-1798-1848/dp/0140240845/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b">Niall Ferguson’s two volume biography</a> of the family. (To see classical liberal historian Niall Ferguson discuss this and many other issues, watch this <a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/181456-1">interview</a>.) He does, however, rely on noted anti-Semitic conspiracy mongers like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hVx5qHQlRg">Eustace Mullins</a> (see also how Paul's supporters lionize Mullins, <a href="http://www.dailypaul.com/109751/new-eustace-mullins-interview">here</a>). It’s right there in the black ink of his own press.</div><br />
<br />
<br />
The book contains all the modern, quite obviously racist canards, of the "paleoconservative" revisionism that is the raison d'etre of organizations like the <a href="http://blog.mises.org/">Ludwig von Mises Institute</a> and pseudo-scholars (and radically pro-Confederate racist revisionists) like <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo190.html">Thomas J. DiLorenzo</a> (see an interview with him <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbFty9nZUac">here</a>, and the Southern Poverty Law Center's description of modern Neo-Confederate intellectuals <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2004/winter/the-ideologues?page=0%2C0">here</a>). Slavery is not the cause of the Civil War, says Griffin, but the "legal plunder" of Northern industrialists against southern agrarians who desperately sought to invest their capital in more efficient resources than inefficient expensive slaves was the true cause. Despite the fact that he cannot even point to an old secondary source that contains such a <em>reductio ad absurdum</em> distortion of historical reality (and they certainly exist, see one of the few secondary sources he does use <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~whm/publications.html">here</a>), he also willfully ignores modern scholarship which is overwhelmingly based on the writings--public and private--of Southerners themselves to indict their vicious and callous and open pro-slavery motivations for rebellion. (For more on this, check out the <a href="http://www.loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=343">Library of America</a> series on Civil War writings from those who lived through the war.) Ron Paul has <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRx-trdMGtY">publicly endorsed</a> these views as well, and I <a href="http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/war-peace/5100-ron-paul-abraham-lincoln-and-the-necessity-of-the-civil-war.html">addressed</a> them in very condemnatory language at the time.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">Now, the Federal Reserve is almost assuredly engaged in foolish policies while performing an inherently illegitimate mission—many famous economists and political philosophers have held that position. The actual historian of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Federal-Reserve-1913-1951/dp/0226520005/ref=wl_mb_recs_2_dp">the Fed</a>, Carnegie Mellon economist <a href="http://public.tepper.cmu.edu/facultydirectory/FacultyDirectoryProfile.aspx?id=98">Allan H. Meltzer</a>, is <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxKq0epPVl4">often highly critical of the role the Fed plays in the economy</a>. It is possible to be a critic of the Fed <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE7zxo61Xc8">without</a> it becoming a crazed, paranoid, obsession with Rothschild financier conspiracies hatched on island resorts.</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">And this brings us back to the troubling pattern of Dr. Paul’s history, friends, <a href="http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/27/attention-ron-paul-anti-semiti">wild-eyed fans</a>, and policies. As President, Paul would have to wait for Congress to audit/abolish the Federal Reserve, but he could immediately commit the country publicly to doing nothing about Iran. Can we count on a man who thinks theocratic, jihadist, holocaust denying Iran is no different than Cuba to defend American interests and allies? What if he did write his own newsletters, knows his advisors are anti-Semitic, nods and winks at his many Neo-Nazi supporters and knowingly endorses conspiracy-ridden screeds that pin all manner of crimes on a family of Jewish aristocrats and financiers? These are questions that need answering. But someone needs to ask him first.<br />
<br />
(Mark Levin did a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KKAJL9DNNk">great segment</a> on this very issue in August 2011. Do your own research!)</div>Alexander V. Marriotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17781689609653626889noreply@blogger.com7