American History

Posted by Roger Saunders

Well, I have to agree!

My own study of history seems to be more about finding places where other eras have repeated their mistakes than looking at my own era and making adjustments. One of the biggest problems we face today is the fear of what is going to happen in the Middle East. We see the instability of governments who are being heavily influenced by Muslim extremists and we have even been attacked on our own shores by these religious folks who claim a form of religion but don’t seem to follow its example too well.

Just over 500 years ago, we saw similar issues. Through the Crusades, Western Europe controlled not only the Holy Land but also the spice trade routes. Imperceptibly, the Ottoman Empire began to make inroads into the control of this resource. The economic power that accompanied it led to the downfall of Euro-Asia to Ottoman control. This threw the monetary markets on the Italian peninsula into depression and there seemed no end to Ottoman incursion … until alternate sea routes began to open to the west via Spanish and English exploration and to the east via Portuguese exploration. Slowly but surely, by the mid 16th century the Ottoman threat receded.

We can see this today. Swap spices for oil and the Ottoman Empire for the extreme Muslims that seem to be gaining in strength. The answer is similar. While there are no new worlds to discover, we can search for alternatives to our oil dependency. If we can be creative enough to do this, we can once again throw off the threat from the Middle East by decreasing the wealth that finances their adventures. Is this our chance to learn from history?

Posted by Roger Saunders

After September 11 there was great public support for these methods. We had to catch those murderous secret cells before they could repeat the tragedy. Civil rights groups raised Ben Franklin's warning.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

James Otis argued against the Writs of Assistance in 1761. "These rights [British Liberties] were inherent and inalienable. They never could be surrendered or alienated but by idiots or madmen and all the acts of idiots and lunatics were void and not obligatory, by all the laws of God and man.”

Then, they used the term "British Liberty" as we use "Civil Liberty" today. Would James Otis call the Senate idiots, madmen or lunatics? (I'm referring only to this issue, not asking what would be a rather rhetorical question otherwise.)

The "Writs" were a warrant that gave an Inspector carte blanche to search anywhere they arbitrarily chose. They also allowed the inspector to "deputize" anyone he chose to make the search.

This FISA Act sets up a secret court that approves Federal Government requests to wiretap anyone they feel is a suspected terrorist.

Are the FISA ACT and the Writs of Assistance the same?

In my opinion, No. The FISA court is made up of 7 District Court Judges appointed by the Chief Justice. It does not allow the wiretapping of American Citizens. However, there is the issue of probable cause, which only applies to whether the subject is the agent of a foreign power; with no criminal prerequisite. This is why any Act like this must be followed closely by voters so it does not exceed its boundaries! If they do we can, and should, vote a new Senate in to eradicate the privilege.

Posted by Roger Saunders

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individuals right to bear arms.

The first half of the Amendment has been the anchor for those who would limit gun ownership. Their position is that the right to bear arms was specifically to arm the Militia. Gun enthusiasts like to concentrate on the second half, claiming the militia is a separate issue.

To see why five justices decided the Constitution guaranteed an individuals right to bear arms, read the Amendment again, inserting the conjunction "and" in place of the second comma.

If that was what the Framers meant to do, why didn't they do that? This is an absolutely fair question that we need to ask about any Supreme Court ruling that can potentially change the constitution without the people's consent. Our only check on the Federal Judiciary is informed voters who hold the Presidents feet to the fire to appoint Justices with integrity.

Having said that, we also need to make sure our cultural differences don't infringe upon the Framer's intent. In this case, I personally feel the ruling has protected their intentions. Here's why.

There was a healthy fear, even after the Revolution was won, of a standing army. It had been the tool of tyranny in every govenment this culture had known. This was why they protected the "State's right" to have regulated Militia. Another reason I agree is that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee "individual rights" were protected. I believe the Framers were trying to say that the Militia could not be infringed by the Federal Government and that the individuals right to bear arms also had this protection.

Posted by Roger Saunders

That famous quote about only having one life to give was attributed to him by his friend, William Hull, who was not there when he was hung.

However, not all is lost in this deviance from American folklore. It is very possible that Nathan Hale said something like this in that situation. Some accounts tell us that he used very similar words and ... who would know more, than his best friend.

In the same way that movies quotes have become somewhat legendary today, i.e. "Go ahead. Make my day!", "E.T. Phone home" or "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!", people in that day quoted popular plays. There was a very popular play during that time period called Cato (A Tragedy in Five Acts). It was about a tragic leader of the Roman Republic who gave up his life when a new regime brought in the rule of the Roman Emperors, dismantling the classical Roman Republic. In the play, in Act IV, Scene 4 Cato says,

"What a pity it is that we can die but once to serve our country."

Hale and his college classmates at Yale were known to write entire letters to each other either in code or even just using the words from this play. So, it is entirely possible based on eyewitness accounts and upon his familiarity with this play, that Nathan Hale did indeed say in at least some form:

"I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country!"

Posted by Roger Saunders

In 1761, James Otis left a great government job to bring a suit against the government of that same country he loved so well. This was not a rash step caused by impetuosity! This was a heart wrenching decision; but one he had to make for the good of the Empire of Great Britain. There was an insidious trend by Parliament to trample on the ancient British Constitution and British Liberties.

James Otis stood up against the country he loved because he loved it! The Patriots of that era tried for 14 years from this seminal court case to solve these problems with the basic human rights of life and liberty. They did not resort to open rebellion until they had no other choice. Then they did the greatest thing any band of revolutionaries has ever done.

On this day we celebrate the symbol of the gift of perpetual revolutionary thought and power that would guarantee that as long as the people were wise and willing, they could have a bloodless revolution. The ballot box with votes replaced the cartridge box with lead and black powder. To this day, except for the Civil War (which was heartrendingly necessary to handle the unfinished business of the revolution), we have been able to keep a reign on government without resorting to war.

If we continue to keep the ballot box loaded, we will not have to resort to loading up the cartridge boxes to defend our liberty and freedom. We must still have the convictions of James Otis. We must speak out when we see abuses of power. When we use the revolutionary weapons our founding fathers left us we will insure that we will continue to have a peaceful method to keep this 232 year long revolution alive!

Long may it wave!

Posted by Roger Saunders

I believe the most significant event in the modern history of the World occurred in Annapolis, Maryland on December 23, 1783. That is the day that General George Washington made the most incredible and by far the most effective speech ever made to, or in, any Congress of the United States. By all accounts he had every bit of the popularity and power needed to be crowned King of the United States after he led the Continental Army in the quest for Independence. Instead, on this day, he resigned his commission as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army and went home to be a farmer.

If he had succumbed to the thirst for power, which almost everyone in the history of the world in his situation had, up until that point, America would not be the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world that it is today.

As a nation we are surely not faultless. We have made many mistakes but the greatness of this country is that we can continually rise above these mistakes. Even the fact that we have the freedom to talk about them, and, more importantly, vote for our leaders based on their performance, is testimony to the fact that this is the greatest country on the world. The world would be a very miserable place if George Washington had not resigned that day!

King George III of England had this to say when he heard that Washington had resigned,

"Either he is the most foolish man in the world or else the greatest!"

We all know the answer to that stunned observation!

Posted by Roger Saunders

Checks and Balances are an aspect of political science that promotes fairness for the majority of people. It had its beginning with the Magna Carta where the nobility (or Aristocrats) became a balance of power to the king. The idea was to make sure that not one person could become too powerful.

This European Kingdom used the Magna Carta as a foundation to develop into the constitutional monarchy under which England was run. This consisted of the King, House of Lord's and the House of Commons. The American Revolution provided Americans a chance to apply this theory and practice to a very old form of government which had not been used extensively in any country for almost 2000 years. It was called "republican". This was not the political party but it simply meant that the government would be run for the good of the public by being represented by the public.

Its initial experiment in America was performed as 13 seperate colonies each created their own constitution. These documents were influenced heavily by John Adam's instructions from the Continental Congress. Each of the Constitutions were republican in nature and most of them were explicitely so. It was the pride of each of these representatives governents to call themselves republican.

The theory of checks and balances was not applied to the federal government until 1789 when the constitution was created. It put three branches of government into play which were the Executive (President), the Judicial (Supreme Court) and the Legislative (Congress, including the Senate and the House of representatives).

Posted by Roger Saunders

This was the very meaning of self-government I believe, in the eyes of the founders. However, I don't believe they ever meant for society itself to be secular. I am also certain that even Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine never thought that a belief in God should not have a great influence on the way we live or govern ourselves.

Paine quoted Old Testament scripture in Common Sense and Jefferson said often that the teachings of Christ were essential to the preservation of American character.

I see the founding fathers as endeavoring to make sure self government meant that the people had the right to self determination in government as well as in religion. The whole purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that no organization, including the federal government, could use religion as a way to control that right to self determination!

Saying that America was founded on Christian principles, per se, does not mean that our government is Christian. It just means that much of the basis for it was a foundation in a moral character shaped very close to prevailing Christian beliefs of that era.

I think the issue becomes muddied when we try to draw absolute lines. Yes, America was founded on Christian principles but that was not the only foundation. Many "unbelievers" also contributed ideas that may have been based solely on the enlightenment (of course the enlightenment inspired "believers" as well). America was founded upon a conglomeration of ideas and beliefs. We cannot dogmatically make a choice between whether America was or was not founded on either Christian principles or Enlightenment philosophy.

Self government was not the sole possession of either Christianity or the Enlightenment. Both contributed, more often than not in concert and RARELY to the exclusion of each other, to the Greatest Experiment in Political Science!

Posted by Roger Saunders

I feel older all the time. It seems like technology is flying faster and faster. At dinner last night one of my kids made a sarcastic comment about Bob Barker's game show being on TV for 85 years. When I immediately retorted that TV wasn't even invented 85 years ago, it hit me that the pace of technical innovation is staggering.

It was a few short years ago, with my ten year old son (bright enough to have just graduated from the US Air Force Academy) that we stopped at a garage sale. We browsed the various items and he walked up to me with an old telephone with a rotary dial. He looked up at me quizzically and said, "Dad, this looks like a phone ... but how would you use it?"

That's when I first felt it!

Just a few days later, we were moving into an older home without a microwave oven. This same son asked me how the previous owners could cook anything without one and I heard these words come out of my mouth,

"Well, when I was your age, we didn't even have ..."

I wanted to reel those words back in as soon as the realization hit me. "I've become my father!"

Seriously, do the words telepresence, bluetooth, haptic interface and neural network even mean anything to you? If they do, then you are in the thick of the progress. If your not quite sure what most of these things are, then welcome to my world! As a history geek, I have been accused of living in the past and I can live with that. I just hope that all of this technology doesn't lead us down a path where there is no past for me to live in!

Posted by Roger Saunders

Patrick Ferguson was the man! He developed the breech loading rifle in 1775 but was called to service during the Revolutionary War before he could fully sell it's benefits to the British Army which decided to only make 100 of the rifles to test. Why it wasn't an easier sell? Who knows? Then again, with guys like Howe, Clinton, Sandwich and the Coward of Minden, Lord George (Sackville) Germain in charge, it isn't any wonder! The first field test of the rifles was on American soil and failed when the rifles began to explode because they were issued the wrong size ammunition.

The story is told that Ferguson did have General George Washington in his sights with the breech loader before the Battle of Germantown but decided it would have been ungentlemanly to pick off the officer whose back was turned to him!

Ferguson was also the commanding officer (and ONLY British Regular present) with the Tories who were mowed down at the Battle of King's Mountain, where he was still innovating, using a whistle to direct his troops because severe injuries to both arms left him holding his horse's reins in his teeth, not allowing him the luxury of opening his mouth to shout orders.

The brave Colonel Patrick Ferguson died during the Battle of King's Mountain and was buried there.

The "downfall" of Ferguson's breech loading rifle was that warfare had not developed past throwing more bodies at the enemy than they could. Also, the never ending enemy of progress, "that's the way we always do it" prevailed. Finally, there were many who thought such weapons inhumane because, believe it or not, it was not a "fair" fight. This would be analogous to our present world view that weapons of mass destruction are evil!