Roger Saunders's Blog

Posted by Roger Saunders

I though it would be fun to go back and read Ferraro's and Palin's speeches and compare the two. Even as a big Ronald Reagan supporter in 1984, I couldn't help but be excited about the very first woman to be nominated for a major party in the US. No one who loves America and what it stands for and the values it has been built upon could help being excited by the fact that 64 years AFTER the 19th amendment was ratified a woman was finally going to be on the ticket. In fact as a Reagan guy, frankly, I remember being a little worried.

In 2008, the presidential election has already proved to be historic as a black man, a woman, and a geriatric all had a very good chance of becoming our nation’s next president. When Barak Obama secured the nomination and did not choose Hillary Clinton to run on his ticket many women (and men) sighed as they felt the dream of a woman executive slipping away.

Then, in a surprise, the republican candidate, John McCain chose the little known Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin to run with him! Hope soared gain and it was cemented for many as she gave a rousingly partisan speech that appealed to the base of the party but was electrifying in its effect on the nation!

So, with the help of the internet I was able to read the two speeches again and observed this striking comparison.

Both mentioned the novelty of being a woman candidate.

Ferraro, in her first sentenc said that,

"America is the land where dreams can come true for all of us."

Palin waited until about a third of the way through her speech to say,

"This is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity."

I believe that this one small difference reflects well on America. In the intervening 24 years between Ferraro and Palin, America’s expectations and value of equality has grown. They have matured to the point where an oblique, though excited reference to being a pioneering woman in politics can be replaced with a clearly defined (and just as excited) reference. The great thing is that it was not so inconceivably a reality any longer that it couldn’t wait until many more important topics were introduced!

Posted by Roger Saunders

No one is prouder when their youngster joins America's Armed Forces than those of us who love America's history. The only drawback is that when we truly understand our history we also know, better than most, the sacrifices our great Service Men and Women have made. It is sobering thing to think about all of those who have given their lives or sacrificed their bodies with everything but death to preserve our freedom. With a grave sense of wonder we see our own children follow in that great service which the father of our country called "more than could be reasonably expected" where they will be "worn out with fatigues and hardship" and "will render that service to the cause of liberty and to your country, which you probably can never do under any other circumstance".

I suppose I am partially to blame. I am the one who made her listen to stories about Deborah Sampson, Sybil Ludington, Mary Hayes and her own 6G-Grandmother Phoebe Ward, The Hero of Fort Freeland. She also heard about two 3G-Grandfather's fighting in separate Iowa Regiments in the Civil War. Maybe the “Coup de Gras” was when we found those old papers of her G-Grandfathers. He served as a B29 Crew Chief during World War II. In these papers we found letters signed by Five-Star General Henry "Hap" Arnold, thanking him for his service to the Army Air Corp in bringing down the power of the German Luftwaffe.

I know she will make us all as proud as we are of everyone who has given a portion of their lives to preserve America's liberty ... but ... this is my little girl!

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 separate 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 in 2007) 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!

Posted by Roger Saunders

This person listed the five goals as:

1) Establish justice

2) Insure domestic tranquility

3) Provide for the common defense

4) Promote the general welfare

5) Secure the Blessings of Liberty

My response was that the most important goal was missing.

In order to form a more perfect union!

Many framers knew they had it wrong on the issue of slavery but felt unity was more important. We may disagree with this value judgment but at the time I think they truly thought they were doing the best they could while keeping the infant country unified. History is easy to judge based upon what we know now. We must carefully try to understand history’s cultural thinking.

This does not mean that we might not have a better idea about how to correct the problem, but we do have 230 more years of experience to help us make better judgments. The simple fact is that the constitution was designed to allow the US to become a more perfect union. That goal is the only way the other five could be accomplished.

Gouveneur Morris wrote the preamble for the constitution while distilling all of the convention's decisions into one document. He did the country a great service when he added "in order to form a more perfect union" because those words are the life blood of the US Constitution. It has taken too many years and bloodshed to accomplish that goal but it is something that as Americans we can continue to work on in a free country until we get it right. This country has made more progress in its existence than any other with the same amount of time in history.

We still have a long way to go but the Constitution has proven to be the vehicle to take us there.

Posted by Roger Saunders

Although it was many times to quench the thirst of the soldiers the most important reason to have a continuous supply of water was to keep the artillery (cannon) cooled off. During the Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778, Mary Hayes was observed by private Joseph Martin supplying this valuable service. Sadly, her husband, one of the artillery officers was killed in battle.

Unflinchingly Mary quickly stepped in to take over her husbands duties. Martin related this story about Mary's service in his diary, "While in the act of reaching a cartridge and having one of her feet spread as far before the other as she could step, a canon shot from the enemy passed directly between her legs without doing any other damage than carrying away all the lower portion of her petticoat. Looking on it with apparent unconcern, she observed that, 'It was lucky it did not pass a little higher, for in that case it might have carried away something else' "

Private Martin then goes on to say that she just ... "continued her occupation." Isn't that par for the course for many of Mary's brave male and female descendants in this proud country. In the face of overwhelming sorrow with the death of a loved one, she not only had the courage to keep fighting for a cause that was greater than herself, she also found the grace and temerity to make light of that most dangerous situation.

Posted by Roger Saunders

Many people, with just a passing glance, view the John Adams administration as a failure, if only because he was not elected to a second term. There were some glaring mistakes in his presidency. The number one mistake being the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act which severely limited the freedom of speech that the constitution was supposed to protect in the 1st Amendment.

A closer look tells a different story. The main reason that Adams was not reelected was because members of the Federalist Party didn't like the way for the way he handled the crisis with France. It almost came to a declared war and was all but that on the high seas. Adams had to stand up to his own party in order to cool the ardor for war. He held the conviction that diplomacy and patience would win in the end. It was very close but he turned out to be right. He sacrificed his own ambition to remain president in order to make sure that his young country would not have to go through a war that it was not ready for.

Historians tell us that if he had followed his ambition rather than his conscience, Americans could very well be speaking French today. It was only a few short years later that Napoleon came on the scene. If we had gone to war with France, Napoleon's rise to power would most assuredly have hastened. If we had lost that war, the French had a very ambitious plan to take over North America and make it part of the French Empire.

So, while Adams had some policies that were not positive, overall, I would say his presidency was successful. He left the country in better shape, from a foreign affairs point of view, than he found it!

Posted by Roger Saunders

This famous song transitioned from a song of derision to an ad hoc National Anthem during the Revolutionary War but this was not the origin of the term. Yankee came from a Dutch term (Jhonki) describing hardworking, thrifty Puritan Englishmen who traded in Dutch ports of call during Oliver Cromwell's protectorate. The name stuck to these folks who resided mostly in the East Anglia.

As Puritans migrated to North America, their thrifty hardworking moniker followed and became synonymous with New Englanders. In the American Revolution, Britain saw these New England firebrands as instigators of the Revolution as they had been during the English Civil War. This is why all Americans who fought the British were called Yankees.

Prior to the American Civil War many Abolitionist groups headquartered in New England. Southerners pinned the entire north with the Yankee moniker, deriding them as puritanical and self righteous. During the two World Wars when the United States sent men to fight in Europe, the entire country earned the name Yank. The term Yankee had now gone full circle from a term of derision to one that Americans bore proudly.

This is evident in the popular American song that goes, I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy, a Yankee Doodle, do or die; a real live nephew of my Uncle Sam, born on the fourth of July. Interestingly enough, in present day New England the term Yankee still retains some of its rancor. It describes someone who is tight fisted and will not part with their money without a fight! Of course, it is also a term of derision in the areas where the Boston Red Sox baseball team is strongly supported because these fans have a very healthy hatred of those Yankees who throw the old horsehide around in New York!