Abortion 2 States 2 End It

 

My mother convinced me of the pro life position in 1971, even though as a Colorado liberal at the time I had originally agreed with “liberalizing” abortion laws.  I have been staunchly pro-life ever since.

As such I have long reasoned that returning the power to regulate abortion to the states is a much better long term strategy against legal abortion than trying to regulate it in the federal congress.  I firmly believe that this state by state approach is not only the most  expeditious path, and by far the most clearly constitutional path, but in political reality it is probably the only path likely to win the ratification of a national Pro-Life Amendment.  Additionally, it can be shown that returning this power to the states (as compared to going the route of federal statutes)  while keeping on the front burner the goal of a national Pro-Life Amendment will result in fewer deaths of innocent pre-born humans; definitely in the long run, in the middle run, and even in the short run.

With the Dobbs decision I felt a deep rejoicing, as if a cloud of fear had been lifted from the nation.  However, since I live in Kansas, the rejoicing was short lived. A mere month and a half later I was shocked to the core when the “Value them Both” amendment went down to stinging defeat.  It became obvious that we have not won the hearts and minds of the majority to the pro life cause.

The logic behind returning these powers exclusively to the states is that by once again allowing some states to legally promote a culture with reverence for human life we will provide ourselves a way to win those hearts and minds. Once some smaller, most probably rural, states prohibit abortion, I firmly believe those states will experience a general improvement in social relations.  Returning to a culture that reverences human life will have profound long term effects on that culture, effects which will become obvious after a full generation is raised with those values enshrined in law. Having a living object lesson of the good that follows pro life legislation will be far more persuasive than all the arguments and advertising campaigns ever can be.

I also believe that in responding to that object lesson, over time (10-20 years), the people in some other states will follow the example after they see the social improvements that followed in the wake of officially being in favor of life.  As other states follow with pro life laws, the idea of a Pro-Life Amendment will start to sound very do-able.  Then, as the truth sinks in to the whole nation that a culture which has reverence for human life is a culture which will do well in establishing justice, family stability, lawfulness, prosperity, and peace in general, we will be able to get such an amendment ratified.  Thus the issue of legal abortion could finally, at long last, truly be settled. Admittedly, this is a somewhat rosy scenario (of such are all visions), but the big point is that by returning this important power of moral self government to state and local control, we will once again be using our form of government to symbiotically educate and elevate the thinking of the masses.

Contrast this rosy scenario with what is likely to happen is we go the route of using federal statutes to end abortion.  The most likely outcome is that we, as a nation, will remain divided and paralyzed on this issue, much as we have been for  the last fifty years.  I understand the arguments in favor of federal statutes, based on the 5^th  and 14^th amendments, the life, liberty and property clauses.  I don't much like it, but I don't think it's nothing.  I do see that it is legitimate to discern a right to life in that language.

A big problem, however, immediately appears. 

If a right to life can be constructed out of those clauses with enough weight to ban abortions nationwide, then I am afraid the right to liberty, which resides right there next to the right to life, could be twisted by those willing to do so to mean a right to abortion, and thus be imposed on the entire nation by congressional statute with equivalent constitutional legitimacy. 

Therefore, using the “life, liberty” language as a basis for constitutional authority, while not completely illegitimate, is both divisive and would prove to be indecisive. Both sides could use it.  The inevitable division such use will cause points out the truth that abortion is almost impossible for the American political mind to resolve, because it is the point where our two most fundamental rights, the right to life and the right to liberty, can be construed as coming into conflict with each other.  That is not a construction I favor, but many millions of my countrymen do favor it. 

That is why I don't believe the issue of abortion will ever be settled in America until we ratify a Pro-Life Amendment.

Thus, if we go the route of regulating abortion via federal statute the issue of legal abortion is likely to become (or remain?) a perennial political football, which will likely result in many deaths.  Every election, from representative to senator to president, will be federalized by this issue. One side grabs the reins, and prohibits abortion nationwide, and then the other side wins the next election, and mandates legal abortion nationwide. That thirteen week standard could easily become a double edged sword.  Our thinking on abortion will remain at this same paralyzed, hysterical moment for as long as we can imagine.  No shining examples of states revering life would be allowed when the Democrats are in power, so that object lesson won't even come into existence, at least not for long enough to get some purchase. Hearts and minds are much less likely to change.

 The issue of abortion can be counted on to perennially energize the concupiscent left, and continue the national mental paralysis, the deep division, this issue has long caused. Many innocent lives will be lost.

Here is the heart of it.  To win the cultural wars,we have to win the hearts and minds.

Those people on the other side, the concupiscent?  They are truly in darkness but they vote.  For many, the only thing they think they have left is their sexual lives, their intimate lives.  Every thing else, as they see it, is slave wage jobs, taxed and monitored.  So that is the hill they are willing to die on.

Today.

We won't win those hearts and minds by simply getting big and strong. That can easily drive the weak, demented and fearful deeper into the dark. (and rev up the black market abortion industry)  Let some time pass, with the abortion issue simmering down, some states legal, some prohibit, some partial.

As a lot of those folks get older, they will lose some of those early values, especially if no one is out there making them defend those old decisions every day.

Then, years later, as the perennial questions of  self government come up again, those would be some of the folks calling for a return to stronger morals.  Give the nation a chance to reflect and repent regarding abortion.  In that context, the thing that will most convince the masses will not be arguments, documentaries, or even education programs, no matter how well crafted or powerful.  Rather, shining examples of what an American culture which intentionally reveres life looks like will do the convincing.

Hold the federal approach in abeyance, not using it now, but keeping it in reserve. Instead, for now, let all us pro-lifers join together in insisting that it be worked out in the states.  If we join arms on this, the Democrats could not force the federal approach on us.  Then let's commit to making it work at the states, going beyond just prohibiting abortion and seeking a pro-life amendment.  Let us sincerely seek a culture of life.

If we are to encourage a culture with reverence for life, it must be one that enables young people to start families with confidence that hard work and frugal habits will be enough to raise that family successfully.  To require, especially young women, to sublimate those powerful desires for family until prosperity is reached on the terms dictated by modern corporate culture is to legitimize adultery. These desires will find expression, and that then becomes the backbone of the pro abortion movement.

All the needed changes can be made at the state, local and even just voluntary community levels. Prioritizing families in this way, with improved and ongoing education available to young fathers and mothers.  Tax policies which encourage young families, and which encourage companies to open entry level positions for young parents. Some of these moves might diminish the profits of some, but we could make these changes in traditional American ways, not involving federal socialism, and yet greatly aiding young families.  This is the way a society which reveres life must operate,and if sincerely done well, will bring about that shining example which will win hearts and minds.

In the short run, abortion will be greatly reduced in some states, and not noticeably change status in most states. Many babies will not be killed.

In the medium term, as more states limit abortion the general zeitgeist will start to feel like legal abortion is falling out of favor.  Many more babies will not be killed.  We will be winning the battle for hearts and minds.

In twenty to thirty years, going the route of the states, we could be looking at ratifying a Pro-Life Amendment.  Twenty to thirty years of going the federal statute route, and I fear we would likely still be in the divided, paralyzed, and hysterical status we are in today.  Additionally, tragically, many more innocent pre-born children will be lost going down that path.

As an ardent, nearly life long advocate for life, and as a born again Child of God, I pray and beg my fellow Pro-Lifers to consider the wisdom of this approach.  May God bless us.

What's the Matter With TwitterX: Socrates,Jesus and the End of Western Civilization

 

Today, while exploring the nether regions of X, or Twitter, or what ever name Musk will next use to wrong foot most of the human race, I learned that some people are paying ten thousand dollars a year to boost their reach on X.  They pay this sum in expectation of earning more than that as creators.  That fact inspired some unexpected insights regarding social media.

I had not known (maybe I am too naive?) previously that some of the big “influencers” had invested that kind of money.  That fact explained, to me, why Twitter is so disappointing.  With that kind of money on the line, the vicious and underhanded popularity contest that X has devolved into makes sense.

I started on Twitter, and continue, with the now obviously vain hope that it is some kind of free market place of ideas.  So I have been constantly surprised to find that putting out new and valid ideas, especially in the realms of theology and American political philosophy (my specialties) has not resulted in gaining a lot of followers. 

Turns out that in this vicious, for profit, middle school style popularity contest, the last thing some influencers want to do is respond to a good idea.  That just allows the newcomer to gain followers and might detract from the influencers influence (and profit).  So, I have ignorantly, generously and for no pay simply shared my hard won insights with the world at large.  While I was disappointed when my favorite thinkers did not re-post, comment, or otherwise use this forum to further human understanding, I was downright alarmed when I would see some of those same ideas, slightly paraphrased, a day or two later in some creator's post.

Now I know why.  Twitter, and Facebook, and all the other social media (and virtually all corporate media generally) is not about informing, educating, and other wise spreading Truth.  No, it is all about monetizing the deep hunger that all humanity has, especially in these dire times, to learn the truth and to share the truths they have developed.  Our current fear driven frenzy to somehow solve the looming national if not global conflagration is creating an insatiable demand for knowledge and truth.  The social media, and old media along with it, are happy to sell us some small portion of that truth.

This is where the lives and examples of both Socrates and Jesus come in to play.  These two men are undoubtedly the founding figures of Western thought, and the one precept they had in common is that they highlighted how evil it is to have knowledge commodified and sold to the people.  That is because when the “leaders” of a society make merchandise of knowledge and wisdom, they have a vested interest in the people remaining ignorant.  What's more, even if some knowledge is sold, the best and most useful knowledge will remain closely held, lest the masses no longer need the elite teachers.

In the case of Socrates, his career consisted of teaching the youth of Athens that the things the educators taught were wrong were, in fact, true, and the things the educators asserted as truth turned out to be false.  After a few decades of this, the learned men and teachers of the law in Athens were fed up and had him tried and sentenced to either banishment or death by drinking hemlock. He drank the hemlock.

With Jesus, it was a little different.  He was simply teaching the Truth of the Gospel to everyone.  When the disciples of John the Baptist came asking (for John) if he was the Messiah, one of the things Jesus said to tell John was that the Gospel was being taught to the poor.  (As a slight aside, that statement implies that some of the vital truths of God were being taught, for money, to the rich before Jesus came along.  Hmmm?)  At any rate, that same demographic, the learned men and teachers of the law, this time in Jerusalem, had Jesus crucified for some of the same reasons that Socrates was killed.

So here we are, seemingly at the twilight of Western civilization, struggling to learn anew the most basic lessons from our beginnings.   The electronic media, which could and should be used to enlighten and liberate humanity from the ignorance of the past, is instead being used to confuse our minds and increase the power of ignorance to divide and incite us. 

This dynamic also explains why there are so few innovative solutions gaining wide exposure on social media.  New ideas have always been a great threat to any political and cultural establishment, because a truly new, innovative concept might disrupt that entire establishment.  Sadly, almost all the influencers, most of whom probably started out on X to resist the establishment, have, due to the jealous and greedy dynamic inherent on X, been captured by that same establishment.

All of this is has been and is being driven by deviously clever “leaders” posing, in the way such people usually do, as saviors while they greedily exploit and frustrate our common desire for truth, wisdom, unity and peace.  Good work if you can get it.

Healing America's Oldest Wound

 

The term “systemic racism” has come to prominence these last few years, as the crowning expression of “woke” ideology.  The term, and the concepts it represents are doomed to fail in the quest to right the wrongs of America's past, because they are a complete misdiagnosis of the basic problem.  In addition to being racist in its own right, it has the flaw that since it tries to cover so many things it becomes a meaningless mush; a sweeping indictment of everything everywhere.  As such, it ends up covering nothing. One begins to suspect it is desperate, if not cynical, attempt to make sense of a long and painful unsolved mystery.  Hence, it has devolved into little more than another of humanity's consensual paranoid delusions, totally incapable of healing the pain and frustration it pretends to offer as a cure. 

The pain and frustration seem to come from not just the years of  widespread and legal African American oppression, but more especially from the time since the civil rights movement.  Since that time no official racism has been allowed, and yet the African American community has not only not made great progress, but has in many ways regressed. Certainly, family breakdown, drug use, crime and violence have increased in the black community since the 1960’s.  What’s more, with the immigration of various African ethnic communities, and their subsequent rise in American culture, the comparison with the seemingly perpetual social malaise in the wider African American community has caused increasing frustration. 

It seems to many people as if something has been done, and continues to be done, to African Americans that is keeping them down.  No one can exactly define what is being done, but there is widespread sentiment that something bad was and is being done, and somehow White people are responsible for it.  Thus, the delusional concept of systemic racism to gain acceptance.  The strategy that has emerged from this concept is to try to chase down and exterminate said invisible bogeyman of systemic racism.  The tactic then becomes to confront and abuse random White people until they admit their hitherto unknown racism, and reinforce the credibility of the questionable concept. So the idea, and the tactics continue, with still no progress being made.

That strategy is doomed to failure because it is based on an inaccurate diagnosis of the problem.  Yes, many of the ongoing, multi generational problems in the African American community are the result of what White people did to Black people, but the abuse has almost all ended while the problems persist.  To end the problems and repair the damage (the real meaning of reparations) we must first accurately diagnose the problem.  Once we do that, we will see that naming the remedy is relatively easy.

Stating the diagnosis is the simple, albeit probably painful part much like ripping the dressing off an old wound.  Simply put, the great wound inflicted on African Americans is two-fold.  First, the mode of their importation and enslavement rendered them into what is essentially a new ethnic group.  Second, this new ethnic group, which was inadvertently formed as a side effect of the efficient yet inhumane machinery of mass enslavement, has, since its genesis, been deprived of the blessings and burdens of community self-determination.  These two aspects, which will be detailed shortly, have combined to induce a debilitating and continuing impairment in African American culture.

Let’s unpack the first aspect which is that African Americans were rendered into a new ethnic group at their birth. Consider the unprecedented depth of the cultural dismantling that took place during the great African enslavement in the United States.  Each individual African was stripped of almost all cultural accouterments and the psychological identity that came with them.  First, their clothes were taken and when they landed in the new world they were forced to accept European clothes.  Their language was brutally suppressed, along with any cultural forms or tribal associations. Any communication with family or friends back in Africa was totally impossible.  Since the number of slaves was relatively large compared to the number of Whites, fear of a slave uprising motivated the White slave owners to be intensely diligent in obliterating any expression of Black identity, unity, or self determination.

When, after enduring all this psychological trauma, the individual African American returned to social cohesion, it was in stilted English and as a member of the most abused and demeaned group in the new nation, permanently on the bottom of the social ladder. A new people, conceived in enslaved suffering and formed by the powers of greed and fear, were born anew on God’s earth. They carried forward virtually no shared memories of a previous existence, and there were no ethnic distinctions between the various enslaved African peoples that were recognized or meaningful.

            This experience is unique, certainly in America, and probably, given the size of the enslavement and the depth of the cultural dismantling, in the world.  Even the far greater number of African slaves brought to Latin America didn’t suffer anything like that total cultural dismantling.  They were arguably treated more brutally, often being worked to death, but they were left to speak and associate as they wished. The other ethnic groups that came to America, or that were already here, didn’t suffer any where near this degree of cultural obliteration. 

The Native Americans, although decimated on a large scale, were cheated and lied to but still retained their tribal councils and a degree of national self determination.  Happily, almost all of their cultural institutions are witnessing revival today. By way of comparison with enslaved African Americans, the Irish, the Chinese, and the Mexicans, who were probably the most ill treated of the various immigrant ethnic groups, still kept their clothes, their foods, their languages, and were still able to keep in touch with their families in the old country.  Even in the face of some opposition, they were allowed to associate with each other as they chose.  They congregated in their own neighborhoods and in their own towns.  After two or three generations they would start to move out into the larger culture, confidently moving forward from a position of strength because they had a political and economic power base since they been allowed to exercise a great degree of community self-determination.

This brings up the second aspect of the wound that has been inflicted on African Americans, which is that this new ethnic group, unlike any other group in human history, has never exercised meaningful community self-determination.  There is a consciousness that grows naturally in any group that has any degree of self-determination, and has developed since ancient times in every group in the world.  Even in a country as repressed as ancient China, the local warlord demanded tribute, but he left most problems, such as water, food, medical care, moral restraint, the consequences of immorality, and almost all the other cultural issues, to be worked out by the local villagers.  The same was true in Ireland, where the English rulers took the wheat as rent, and left the Irish to fend for themselves on rotting potatoes.  The same dynamic held true for immigrants from Latin America and the other areas of Europe and Asia. 

            When these villagers from the various areas in the world arrived in America, they had a history and a memory of how to run their own communities.  Even if they weren’t from the exact same villages, members of these ethnic groups shared the same or similar language, systems of taboos, personal responsibilities and expectations.  What’s more, they knew without even thinking about it how to pass these on to their children.

            In fact, the same thing was and is true throughout Africa.  The Africans who were forced on to the slave boats would, if they had been left to their own devices, have been more than capable of forming together in healthy, self governing communities, and would have achieved a strong power base just like every other group has.  A quick look at the modern experience of the Ethiopian, Somali, Nigerian, and other African immigrant communities confirms this truth.

            But African Americans back then weren’t left to their own devices.  They were enslaved and their culture destroyed.  Since they were someone else's property, their well being, in terms of drinkable water, medical care, food, and shelter, was under the responsibility and authority of their White owners.  We can thank God that since racism was so extreme, Blacks were left to study the Bible and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ on their own.  However, even in the area of sexual morality, Blacks were encouraged to be promiscuous, as it enabled slave owners to more easily sell family members for monetary gain, and to engage in selective breeding.

The point is that African Americans weren’t allowed to exercise the powers of self government, of self-determination, and therefore weren’t forced to respond to the challenges of self-government. They were to know their place, do their jobs, and any community problems that arose were to be dealt with by the master in the big house.  Usually, the leader of the local Black community was selected by the owner and was the one who might successfully persuade the master to meet some of the community’s needs.

            Things really didn’t change much after slavery.  There were many in the African American community who recognized the opportunities and responsibilities inherent in freedom, and worked with courage and enthusiasm to meet them.  However, even during Reconstruction, and certainly afterward in the era of Jim Crow, their efforts were thwarted with brutal oppression and terrorism. 

            Well into the 20^th Century, African Americans were kept in near slavery, with no seat at the table where decisions are made.  The worst aspect of this, far worse than the simple lack of self-determination, was the fact that the conditions that develop a healthy consciousness of self-government were still absent.  It must be acknowledged that there were some exceptions to this, like Mound Bayou, Mississippi and some few towns run by African Americans in Oklahoma and elsewhere, but they were too few to change the larger African American culture. 

Even without most of the powers of self government African America continued to rise.  A business class arose, when it wasn’t being bombed out as in Greenburg, Oklahoma.  The Black families were becoming stronger and more stable all the way through the 1950’s.  With the success of the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans demonstrated that they had achieved enough strength and influence to gain political equality with Whites.  Then the third crime perpetrated against African America. after slavery and Jim Crow, was the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson.

            Close on the heels of the equalizing Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts (1964-65), Lyndon Johnson enacted a series of socialist programs, called the Great Society.  While seeming to have good intentions these programs continued the crime against the African American community because they once again denied to Blacks the powers and burdens of self determination.  There are some who might say that there is poetic justice in this because self-determination was also largely taken from the White community at the same time, but that should be small solace because the tragic wounding of the Black community continued unabated.

            Consider how many cultural decisions used to be made (by Whites) at the local level, and are now made at the federal level.  Health care, public relief, moral education of the young, control of pornography, and many other issues, ranging from how to provide clean water and sanitation to how to generate local jobs used to be made by local communities.  From 1933 to 1963, a nascent socialism (a topic for another day) took root and fully bloomed in the late 1960’s, removing almost all the powers and burdens of moral self government from all the people, even the white people, just shortly after African Americans gained a real measure of political equality.  Truly, the pie turned rotten just as they finally got a piece of it.

 

Truly, the pie turned rotten just as they finally got a piece of it.

 

            Look at the similar cultural effects of these three conditions.  In slavery, there was an alienation from the legal structure.  The master made the rules, and if one could get away with breaking them, very few of the fellow slaves would hold them to account.  As long as what was being done didn’t threaten to bring down the master’s wrath, it was of no concern to the community because the community hadn’t made the rules.  That same thinking held true during Jim Crow.  The “man” made the rules, so if you could get away with skirting them, more power to you.  That thinking was slowly losing ground until the 1960’s, but it has come back with a vengeance since then.

            “The Man” is back, and these days Whites, and everybody else, are in the same boat.  Look at how we all think today.  “We” don’t talk about what “we” are going to do to solve a problem.  “They” have to solve the problem, and “they” are expected to provide us with all our wants. 

            We are to do our jobs and get away with what we can.  Whether it’s cheating the welfare system, cheating on our taxes, or cheating in traffic, it’s only wrong if you get caught because we have no social obligation to each other.  If there is any problem, “they” have to solve it.  Our leaders are those who can get the master…er the man… er, I mean the federal government, to come up with the money to solve our problems for us.  This really is the mindset of almost the entire country and some of our leading thinkers are correct in calling this a plantation mentality.

So, what is the solution? How do we go about healing this almost 400-year-old wound in the African American community?  The great wounding of African America will end and the healing begin when African Americans are free and equal citizens of self-governing communities.  That can only happen when most of the powers of self government are devolved from the federal government and revert back into the hands of state and local governments.

 

The great wounding of African America will end and the healing begin when African Americans are free and equal citizens of self-governing communities.

 

“Hold on there,” one can hear the roar of protest. “Isn’t this just advocating a return to states rights?”  Yes and no, mostly no.  First of all, only people have rights, and according to Jefferson, we delegate certain powers to government to secure those rights.  This is merely saying we should delegate far fewer powers to the federal government and return them to the states and localities. 

“States rights” as advocated by those who called for them, were always about the states being able to deny rights that had already been established, and it was therefore a total lie.  Both the states and the federal government dropped the ball and didn’t honestly enforce the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th Amendments for nearly 100 years.  This situation has been used in the last 60 years since the Civil Right Acts to completely discredit local self-government, but that is a misreading of history because the federal government was complicit and contributed to Jim Crow just as much as the states.  Here, at this point of seeing the equivocation of the federal courts and how they cynically did not use an originalist, strict construction of the Constitution, especially when ruling on the post Civil War amendments, is where one might find the invisible bogeyman ghost of systemic racism.  However, it won’t be found by attacking the innocent or even well meaning words of some random White folks in the 2020’s.

            So if the cure is to establish true self-determination for the African American community, the struggle promises to be difficult because some powerful forces want to deny self-determination to all Americans, and to all humans for that matter.  There might be some ready allies in the (conservative) White community who are concerned about the same issues if the two groups can find their way to each other.  Perhaps a revival of the efforts at reconciliation can be ignited within the (mostly conservative) Christian community. Such an effort promises to bear beautiful fruit.  Further, by all means, the voices in the African American community calling for moral revival, self initiative, economic self sufficiency, and all the other civic and personal virtues should be welcomed and amplified because of such ideals are all healthy communities built.   

Nonetheless, the burden of self determination must be sought and borne if the great wound is to be healed.  Some might complain that absorbing all the changes this path entails is not fair.  Why must the victims endure even more pain?  Such objections are valid, because this is not fair, just as it’s not fair that the victim of a brutal assault must generate the self discipline and endure the pain of rehabilitation in order to recover from the assault.  Sure, the assault victim and the victims of racism and slavery could just blame the perpetrators (White people in this case) for their problems, and remain wounded.  Or they could demand, and maybe even receive some financial reparations, a court settlement from the criminals, feel good for a while, but if they continue to dodge the pain of rehabilitation they will remain wounded. 

Or they could, like a victim choosing painful rehabilitation, find their own healing. (Here the analogy slightly breaks down, because the African American community would be gaining something they were deprived of since their genesis, not regaining something they previously had.)  In the courageous spirit of their forebears, they can seek the finish line of community self-determination, meet the difficult challenges of moral self-government when it is gained, and thereby begin to heal the centuries old wound.  Such a strategy, while it will be challenging, is the only way to heal and is guaranteed to bear much sweeter and much more abundant fruit than the angry quest to root out the mythical bogeyman of “systemic racism” ever can.

It Was FDR, Not the 60's

 

Just today, on a Tucker Carlson interview, the nice lady again voiced the warning from John Adams that, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people, it is unsuited for any other,” and then, when the question of when the morality of the American people started to decline was asked, the answer was, “In the 1960's”.

This is wrong, because the real moral decline was initiated in the 1930's, under the rule of FDR.  The way we can see this is to realize that the corollary of that Adams quote, about how our system of free self government will work only if the people are moral is also true; that only a people who are truly free and self governing will tend to be moral.  So when FDR suspended the Constitution in 1933, and by doing so then usurped from the states and communities almost all the powers and responsibilities of self government, he started the process of decay.

It is not so much that the changes in government forced the people to become immoral.  Rather, the case is that by taking all those powers and responsibilities away from the people in their communities, the change allowed immorality to grow.  Since the people no longer felt that they had to assert their moral values in local meetings, to ensure that their community was safe, cared for and healthy, they no longer bothered to do so.  In very short order the reasons for maintaining personal morality also became lost to our minds, with religion being shifted from being a vital aspect of community health to becoming just another personal hobby.

This cancer of immoral thinking was not pushed from the elites, at least at first.  Simply by removing from our communities that vital link between government and morality, they didn't have to.  All that had to happen was the passage of time and natural human nature, with its selfishness and laziness, did most of the rest.

That natural tendency to moral decline was abetted in 1947 when the Supreme Court ruled that a separation of church and state had to suddenly and magically be applied to the states.  Even then, that ruling and its implications was allowed to sit dormant for more than a decade before being hauled out to be the basis for throwing prayer, and other moral education, out of public schools in the early 1960's.

So it is transcendentally important for us to see that our moral decline, while it does appear to have begun in the 1960's, actually started decades earlier.  It is like a cancer was planted in the early 1930's, and then metastasized in the 1960's.  It didn't seem like a problem until the late 60's, but it was one.  The reason this is such an important point at this time is that if we are to revive our nation, and that will necessarily entail reviving ourselves morally, it is not going to happen if we think we need to simply reverse the indoctrination of the 60's and beyond.  The even worse course we might take, which some are flirting with, is if we think we should simply replace the totally illegitimate Secular federal establishment the Court mandated in 1947 with some kind of Christian federal establishment.

No, the important truth is that the only way to revive our morals as a nation is to return the powers of self government, including the powers of moral self government, to the people in their communities.  It might be a messy and long term process, but that is the only, THE ONLY, way to revive our national morality and our experiment in popular self government.

Elitism and Tyranny

All human governments have one common problem, which is that every system of government establishes seats of power; positions of authority.  Those seats of power, no matter how noble their conception, immediately at conception become attractive to the kind of people who want to have power over other people.  Consequently, no matter how we set up a government, we always end up selecting for and getting mostly deluded sociopaths for rulers.  They are the  kind of people who passionately want power over other people. This becomes an ever growing problem the more we allow the powers of government to become centralized in one big government.

 Maybe not all of our leaders fit this profile, but certainly most of them do.  Because of that elitism is always a threat to the populace as a whole, much like rust is always threatening to ruin anything made of metal.

Aristotle to the contrary, there are really only two basic forms of government, Local Community Moral Self Government, and the various forms of elitist oligarchy.  “Oligarchy” is rule by wealthy families and powerful special interests.  All the other forms of government (besides LCMSG), from dictatorship to monarchy to  aristocracy, Marxism, Fascism and all the rest always seem to have in common that things are actually run by some powerful amalgamation of hidden special interests and wealthy families (oligarchy) and all use the same pretext of elitism to keep themselves in power.

Elitism is then the idea that some elite group should rule over the rest of us.  It is a philosophy of government commonly seized upon by those aforementioned sociopaths who simply want power over others.  When they get in those positions of power they find themselves largely surrounded by like minded sociopaths, so the idea that we “superior” elites should just run things by ourselves for the good of the ignorant masses arises naturally and greatly appeals to them.

The basic flaw with elitism can be simplified to a mathematical formula, namely A+B>A, where A stands for the wisdom of the elite class, and B stands for the wisdom of all the rest of humanity.                                             

                                                         A+B>A

  All  A+B>A means is the wisdom and knowledge of all the people together will always be greater than the wisdom and knowledge of any small group of people, no matter how high their intelligence or thorough their knowledge.  It is impossible for it to be otherwise because that small elite group, with all its intelligence, wisdom and knowledge, will always be included in the population as a whole. 

The big downside of an elitist system is that the elite 2% will tend to seize and consolidate as much power as possible, truly believing that they and they alone have the requisite wisdom to rule society. Since it will prove impossible to maintain that conceit, at least as far as easily keeping their victims convinced of it, their first priority will always be holding on to power. 

Therefore, they will squander much of their intelligence, using their control of media and the education system, to divide and degrade the people. They will work to entice the masses into desires, attitudes and habits that leave them incapable of governing themselves or of working together freely with their fellow citizens to solve mutual problems.  At that point the people will begin to feel an increased need to have the elitists rule over them, thus rewarding the scheme of the elitists by giving them even more powers with which they will probably further degrade the masses.

At that point, the equation is changed. It becomes A+B>A,  diminished A. In words, A plus B, the wisdom of the elites combined with the wisdom of the masses is much greater than > the wisdom of diminished A , the wisdom, knowledge and energy left in elite circles after they have expended so much effort in deceiving, degrading and oppressing the masses.

This stark deficiency is not yet the worst aspect of elitism when compared to non elitist government.  In the American ideal of liberty that natural elite 2 % is embedded in and an organic part of the local community.  Then they, as credentialed and internationally accepted members of the intelligentsia who keep themselves abreast of events and ideas, and who see it as part of their civic role to translate the latest cultural developments into language that the common people (their neighbors and friends) can understand, begin to act as cultural elites who have not bitten into the tempting apple of elitism. At that point the equation becomes:   

                                                         A+B>A

In English this means that enhanced  A+B, the enhanced wisdom and knowledge of all the people united together is vastly greater than the wisdom and knowledge left to the isolate elitists after they have spent themselves subverting their fellow citizens.  Truly exponential enhancement of popular wisdom and knowledge could grow out of the American system if we make it work as intended. 

Every culture at every time has always had an elite 2%, the multi talented folks who excel in their fields.  Rather than joining together with each other in DC, New York, L.A. and Palo Alto to rule over the rest of us (as they do today), our elites used to behave in a much more honorable and constructive manner.  In traditional America, a nation with Local Community Moral Self Government, those same elites mostly stayed in their hometowns and used their knowledge and talents to elevate the thinking of their neighbors. Much of that positive dynamic was set in motion by our decentralizing of the powers of government, and by our system of checks and balances which wisely set one group of elected sociopaths against other groups of elected sociopaths.  It wasn't a perfect system but it did prevent the worst of elitism.

Let's switch gears a second and learn something from rats.  As individuals, rats are not typically highly intelligent animals.  When, however, they are in a mischief (that is the term), the intelligence of the rats as a group goes way up.  They effectively learn from each other.  That might be why the term “mischief” is used for a group of them.

The system of ordered liberty that developed in America resembles a mischief of rats in that it enables us to combine and effectuate the best thinking of all the people.  We can set it up again so that we learn from each other, and we will quickly re-learn that A+B is always greater than A.  Given our glorious history, it is not just a matter of faith either, but it becomes an act of faith because we must first reacquire the belief that we will find the most truth when we hear from the most voices.  We will then be most likely to find solutions to our problems.

It is obvious, but must be restated that this great liberty must be an ordered liberty, and not just devolve into a cacophony.  We have had enough cacophony lately.  So it behooves our current cultural elites, and you know who you are, to work to not only ensure that all voices are heard, but that it remains an orderly and hence meaningful process.  What's more, a truly enlightened elite might employ the finest communication, healing and psychological arts to draw out and encourage those individuals who are not polished speakers, but sincerely feel they have something worth hearing.  Let's gently draw them out.  It is my experience that from such humble thinkers great wisdom might be gained. 

Maybe they are bothered by something we are already working on.  Or maybe there is an easy fix, and the person will leave much happier for knowing it.  Or maybe it is a new and good idea that advances society.  Or maybe it is just some nut job.  If so, that will be obvious soon enough and it will be good to have elite experts in on the conversation to debunk it.

Additionally, the natural elite should not be concerned that their voices will be ignored.  We must be committed to the idea that all voices will always be heard.  We certainly need their informed analysis and profound wisdom.  Their thinking must not, however, be amplified to the exclusion of all other thinking. 

Finally, this analysis of elitism and human government should open our minds to consider why a return to the American system of Local Community Moral Self Government, as defined in the Constitution as written, is probably the only way to achieve all the goals of freedom, prosperity, social equality and equal justice under the law that we all want.  Especially, those people on the progressive left should try to hear this. While the elitists always paint a pretty picture of what they will do for the masses, their plans are always predicated on giving them all the powers that sociopath run elitist government always grabs for.. We must always keep in mind that the elitists are very unlikely to ever deliver on their promises, because it is the very existence of those problems, and their portraying themselves as the only people who can solve those problems, that causes the masses to continue to support their elitism.

In short, the way to best ensure that government actually serves the people and strengthens our communities is to return most of the powers of self government to the people in their communities.  Just as wiping a metal surface with oil is the best way to reduce the problems caused by rusting metals, re-invigorating Local Community Moral Self Government is the best way to reduce the hideous threats posed against the people by elitism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Plan to Save America

 

This is a bare bones version of the plan to save America. The unique and innovative perspective presented in this plan is based on the insight that the  forms of government have a symbiotic relationship, for good or for ill, with the hearts and minds of the people. We have to deal here in sweeping generalizations simply because the whole plan, when taken in detail, fills a book.  The book is titled, “

 Available on Amazon and Kindle.  Throughout this plan, to read the concepts in greater detail without having to buy a book or pay a fee, the reader will be referred to this blog site lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com., and then to specific blog entries by title and date posted. Go to the post “Fascism Defined,” 4-24-2013,

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-defintion.html

if you want to know how the blog got its name.

To get to it.  Most of the Founders of this nation agreed that our system of government will only work if the people are moral.  Only a moral people will be able to sustain a free and self governing society.  The other side of that coin is also vitally important, (even though no one seems to notice it these days) and constitutes the basis of this plan.  It is equally true that only a people which is free and self governing, exercising the powers of self government in their own communities, will realize the reasons to be moral.  This is the great, and almost completely forgotten, blessing of liberty. 

When the common person, as an individual in a community, has to honestly wrestle with the real world challenges which confront all communities, they will come to recognize how destructive immoral behavior is, and how beneficial moral behavior is.  Sure, some will at first try to just cynically change the behavior of others, but most will come to see that their personal behavior must change first, and hence seek to become the very kind of person who can maintain our system of liberty. 

The system of Local Community Moral Self Government (LCMSG) that the Constitution both defines and enables is a structure of government which, when up and running, symbiotically establishes a positive synergy between the hearts and minds of the people and their government.  That is the great blessing and source of strength of American culture as founded.  The systematic dismantling of that structure is what has gone wrong with our nation.  Re-founding that same structure, while making sure to be sincere, this time, about the “for all” part of “liberty and justice for all” is how to put our nation back together. But of course, it won't be that simple or easy.  Examining the three major steps taken to dismantle our republic will show us what must be done to re-found it.

The first major salvo against our republic, against LCMSG, was the May 10, 1886 Supreme court ruling Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad (118 US 394) which was used to establish the principle of corporate personhood.  This largely usurped the powers of economic self determination from the states and localities in that it, by portraying corporations as persons deserving equal rights under the 14^th Amendment, rendered unconstitutional almost all state and local corporate regulation.

To learn more, go to blogpost: “End Corporate Personhood to Revive Conservatism” 5-10-2020

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2020/05/end-corporate-personhood-to-revive.html

After this 1886 ruling, interstate monopolies became powerful, and most importantly, because the court would no longer allow the communities and states to regulate corporations, the people started to feel that local and state governments were no longer competent to solve many problems.  So they started to accept federal control in business, medicine, and other areas.  The IRS, Federal Reserve, the FDA and other problematic federal policies were born out of that mindset.

The second major attack on our republic, on that precious culture generated by LCMSG, came about under the administration of Franklin Roosevelt.  By 1933, federal regulation of corporations had failed so badly, resulting in the Great Depression, that FDR was able to usurp almost all the powers of social governance, such as welfare and minute regulation of economic activity, from the states and localities and into federal control.  In essence FDR repealed the 10^th Amendment, taking the federal government out from under the limits put on it by the Constitution.  This greatly reduced the need, felt in the hearts of the people, to maintain their own healthy communities in order to meet their social needs. 

To learn more, go to the blogpost: “FDR Was a Fascist” 5-24-2022.

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2022/05/fdr-was-fascist.html

After that , more and more power, both political and financial, was consolidated in fewer and fewer hands until it got to the point where President Eisenhower warned in his departing address of a growing military-industrial complex coming to dominate our nation.

During that war and post war period the third major salvo against our republic, against LCMSG, was launched when the Supreme court ruled, in 1947 Everson v Board of Education (330 US 1) that the  entire 1^st Amendment was to henceforth be applied to the states.  This was a totally wrongheaded blunder, and has led to the complete moral breakdown of our nation.  This is undoubtedly the most controversial aspect of this plan to re-found our republic, to re-establish LCMSG, so rather than try to convince folks here, go to the blogpost: “Our 1^st Amendment has Been Stolen” 7-28-2023.

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2023/07/our-1st-amendment-has-been-stolen.html

  That post starts the explanation, and does have a live link to a complete explanation on another blogpost: “How the First Amendment Was Turned Precisely on Its Head” 5-22-2023.

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2023/05/how-first-amendment-was-turned.html

Moving on, and assuming the reader at least somewhat agrees with this plan so far, we can now see how these three major usurpations, and some of the minor changes that came with them, have almost completely destroyed LCMSG.  In a process that began around 1886, the people, in their communities, have lost the powers of economic, social and moral self government.  These are almost all the real powers of self government. The moral decline, the demoralization, this has engendered, and which should concern us all, is not the result of laziness or stupidity on the part of the people, but has instead been driven by some few flawed court rulings (or non rulings).  The hopeful product of this analysis is that by reversing these flawed policies, we can restore that positive synergy, that heart wisdom in the people about why to be moral, that grows organically from a governmental architecture of  LCMSG.

Before another word is written, we must focus on that word “moral.”  To the disappointment of many Christian, and other religious leaders, in this context it does not necessarily mean Biblical morality.  What it does mean in this plan is that what ever community a person would find themselves in, in a nation with LCMSG up and running, the people of that community would come to be filled with what has been termed “republican virtues” or what has also been called, “community spirit.”  That is, they would come to embrace their community and its values, and work wholeheartedly to make their chosen community work well.

With LCMSG there would be a wild variety of community styles, from deeply religious and traditional, to extremely modern and experimental.  Communities could enshrine whatever values free individuals, and those they chose to gather with in communities of agreement, would choose (Within the limits the Constitution does express in writing).  We would all always be free, as individuals, to choose whichever community we want to live in.

As an example of how this could work, consider how San Francisco might look.  While we would no longer have the federal government mandating any moral issues, Babylon by the Bay could, and probably would, still choose to embrace all the LGBTQ agenda. There would, however, also no longer be federal monies to pay for the negative outcomes of folks embracing what others think of as immoral and unhealthy lifestyles.  So while they could still go their own way on this, the fact that they would have to pay for those negative outcomes out of their own local pockets would probably cause them to modify their stance.  What's more, the local citizens, who will always have a hand in forming governmental policies, would sincerely work to follow whatever guidelines they agreed on.  They would tend to become fervently moral, at least by their own definitions of moral.

To allay the fears of those who would choose more traditional morality we must realize that they also would be free to live in, and raise their children in, a community, a social environment with which they agree and therefore wholeheartedly try to make work.

As we grow, if we can make these reforms, we would be living in a nation with people strongly trying to make their own communities better places to live.  What's more, because of that wonderful system of checks and balances under the Constitution as written, these wildly diverse communities would not be likely to come into violent conflict with communities which have very different values.  To further allay the fears of Christian, and other religious traditions (Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, Pagan, Native American, Secular Humanism, Atheism, etc,  (We must consider America as it is, and what it will become, not what it used to be)) we must realize that in the end, the real competition between all the various systems of belief around which communities might form will be to determine which belief system produces the most peaceful, prosperous, and meaningful lives for its people.  That competition could greatly benefit the common people, and it is a competition I believe Christianity will win.  What's more, and most importantly, individuals would always be free to choose another location in which to live, causing all the local governments to somewhat temper their excesses, knowing that empowering some kind of local oppression would not encourage long term community sustainability. Let's get to that point and let the best belief system win.

So how do we make these reforms, how do we re-found our republic and restore to ourselves that system of Local Community Moral Self Government?  It is actually fairly simple, in theory.

The first and easiest reform would be to restore the 1^st Amendment to its proper use, which is as a prohibition on the federal congress; it is merely a list of subjects they are not allowed to make laws about.  This radical change would shake things up, but the people would quickly fill the vacuum left when the federal government gets out of the business of moral governance.  We could easily affect this change, but only if we really want to.

The second major reform would be to remove the concept of corporate personhood from the courts.  This one would be a little messier, because we would first have to extricate ourselves, as a nation, from a slew of international agreements which prevent any American branch of government from regulating corporations.  Additionally, once we would regain national sovereignty over corporations, we would still want to handle the transfer of such powers back to the states and localities with care, because we would want to keep the markets as stable as we can to continue to encourage investment.  We definitely want to do this though because at the end we would have a much healthier economy, one with which we could more effectively pursue one of the original goals of our government, that of promoting the general welfare.

One important point must be included at this juncture.  The system of Local Community Moral Self Government which the founders gave us will give us a real chance to build ourselves into the kind of society we all want, with decent living for all, health care, peace, prosperity, justice and a secure future. On the other hand, staying with the elitist governmental structure we have been reduced to,(or most likely it will get even more elitist) will never accomplish that, because the elitists have too many reasons to never deliver on their lofty promises.  To read about why elitism is so dysfunctional and so inevitably tyrannical, read the blog post 

"Elitism and Tyranny" 2-22-24

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2023/07/elitism.html

The third reform would not be as delicate as the second, but would take a longer time.  The best course of action, which essentially would be restoring the 10^th Amendment, would be a year to year continuing resolution in Congress.  It would list all the programs and laws in the federal government which do not have clear constitutional warrant to exist.  This is a huge list, since we don't even have any clear mandate for things like national parks or forests, for federal involvement with medical issues, or welfare, or education, or drug prohibition, or on and on.  On a yearly basis we must demand that congress wrestle with the items on the list.  Either identify where there is a constitutional delegation of that power to the federal government, devolve that power back to the states, or create a legitimate federal power in that area by ratifying a new amendment to delegate it properly.  After possibly a years long (if not decades long) effort in this, we could hand to our descendants a government which actually complies with the constitution as written and amended.  That would be a tremendous gift to future Americans.

So that is the basic plan for how to re-found our broken republic.  It should work, but let's face it, it can't work because we, the people have no way to influence our runaway government to do anything along these lines.  What's worse, because we truly are in a fascistic system, the powers that be will be able to prevent us from even talking about it among ourselves.  So in generating an actual feasible plan for re-founding our nation, it has been necessary to take one step back and realize that there was another major aspect of the original American republic which has been taken from us, which is that we do not have a free marketplace of ideas in the press, or as it is called today, the mass and social media.

This problem was not anticipated by the founders, because they did not see, indeed they could not have seen, how changes in information technology have enabled the wealthy to effectively gain almost complete control of the means of communication and prevent a free marketplace of ideas from existing.

Happily, the nature of our high tech communications capability empowers we, the people, to overcome this obstacle to our liberation.  By creatively, and purposely using the media to our benefit, we can establish that proverbial free marketplace of ideas for ourselves.  The way we can do this is to establish a true public forum on a national basis.  This idea is presented in the blogpost:

 “You Say You Want a Revolution” 7-28-2023, 

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2023/07/you-say-you-want-revolution.html

which also has a live link to a much more detailed explanation in the blogpost: “The Open Media Amendment” 4-17-2023.

https://lifeinafascistcountry.blogspot.com/2023/04/the-open-media-amendment.html

Basically, establishing a true public forum, ratifying the Open Media Amendment, will put us in the position akin to someone finding a magic lantern with a genie granting two wishes.  Anyone with any sense, while they might use that first wish for any old thing, will wisely use the second wish to ask for two more wishes.  Opening the media in this way, rallying ourselves to make this one critical change, would give us the realistic ability to get an unending string of wishes, to make all the other changes needed to re-found our republic.

So then that is the plan.  Get ourselves together on this one issue, (people of all stripes have expressed enthusiasm for it) which is opening the media, establishing a true public forum, restoring to ourselves a free marketplace of ideas.  While the powers that be will oppose it, almost all the people will favor it, because most all of us really do believe we have the truth, and that if we could present our ideas in a free but ordered dialogue, the truth of our beliefs will persuade others to our cause. So this one big change is one we could probably coalesce around and thereby force the powers that be to accept.

With the Open Media Amendment ratified, and a free public forum operating, we can take on all the other issues of restoring LCMSG, one at a time or even faster than that, and in the end we might actually restore to ourselves and our progeny the liberty that generations of Americans have struggled and fought for.  The first step is recognizing what has been taken from us.  The second step is to re-envision the kind of nation we were always intended to be, how much more effectively that form of government would allow us to deal with our problems, and most importantly, how returning to that form of government, LCMSG, would cause us to become a more involved, politically aroused, and however one might define it, a more moral people.  That is the great blessing of liberty that might not be felt in its absence, but will be obvious and serve us powerfully when we once again possess it.

Thanks for reading this.  The first concrete step you can take to advance this plan is to send an email to comradeamerica2@yahoo.com, include "Open Media" in the subject line to get on the list as we organize to launch the Open Media Amendment.  This list will be used to coordinate discussion and to, in course of time as the support warrants, launch a web site and convene some form of convention to hammer out the actual wording of an amendment, to then launch the drive to ratify it

William Seward in Black History

When the name William H. Seward is mentioned, most people remember him as the guy who bought Alaska from the Russians, and if they know a little history they also know that he was Secretary of State in the Lincoln administration.  While those two things are true, they come far short of a full appreciation of one of the greatest leaders this nation has ever seen, and it must be noted during Black History Month, possibly the leader that did more than any other to uplift African America.

To start to get a feel for the man, let us hearken back to March of 1846.  A free Black man, one William Freeman, recently released from five years in prison after it was learned he had been wrongly convicted, went on a rampage, murdering an entire family in Seward's hometown of Auburn, New York.  There was no doubt as to the man's guilt in this case, and the prisoner barely made it past the lynch mob to jail.  In court, no lawyer was willing to take the case, probably since the citizens of Auburn let it be known they would kill any who dared.  In the courtroom, when the judge asked if any would defend him, William Seward, a practicing attorney and by then a former governor of the state and not yet running for the senate, stepped forward, at great personal and career risk and against the advice of political allies, to defend the obviously guilty Mr. Freeman on the basis of his insanity.

He lost the case, but in making it he gave a rousing defense, which established his national reputation, of the humanity of Black people, arguing that if the defendant was white, the jury would find him insane and commit him to life in a mental institution. So in many ways, William Seward actually lived out, in 1846, the heroic roles portrayed in the movies “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and “A Time to Kill.”

Even earlier in his life, his wife and he, while not in favor of slavery, decided, in his typically open minded and congenial way, to go down South and see things for themselves.  Barely into Virginia in their southbound carriage, they encountered a group of slave boys being driven to market, chained and naked.  The sight so repulsed both Mr. and Mrs. Seward that they immediately turned around and never again visited the South. They were passionate abolitionists from that day forward.  They fought slavery and anti Black bigotry in every way they could, passing laws in New York, and working tirelessly for the cause on the national level.  Their house in Auburn was a well frequented stop on the underground railroad.

Once elected to the Senate, Senator Seward was the leading voice for abolition and lifting the Black, or what was called at the time, the Negro population.  This earned him the undying hatred of slave owners.  Once, in the heat of battle leading to the Civil War, some southern Senator, letting the false mask of civility slip, used the N-word in a speech in the senate.  Senator Seward, in his response, let it be known that no one would ever be president who spells “Negro with two g's.”  Statements like that, and he made many in favor of freedom and justice for Negros, marked him in the South as their greatest enemy.

By 1860, with the North turning against slavery, and the Republican Party congealing around the issue, it was assumed that the greatest advocate of emancipation, William Seward, would be the nominee.  No one, however, had reckoned on the political acumen of that country lawyer from Illinois, so Abraham Lincoln won the nomination for president.

Although undoubtedly greatly disappointed, William Seward bore the loss well, and in his typical noble manner, campaigned vigorously for Lincoln, for the cause of emancipation and union.  After the Republican won, Senator Seward was anticipating completing his term in the Senate and retiring to Auburn.  It was not to be, because Abraham Lincoln was not only a canny politician, he was a truly wise leader.

Seward was expecting a pro forma invitation from Lincoln to join the administration, and it was expected he would, in similar pro forma fashion, turn down the offer.  But Lincoln sent a second letter with the pro forma one, and its sincerity and wisdom convinced Seward to accept the appointment as Secretary of State.   It was probably the best decision either man ever made, as it brought together two of the greatest minds in the country in the battle for union and freedom.

Even before Lincoln's inauguration but after the election, then still Senator Seward proved his mettle by helping to thwart a confederate plot to take over Washington just before the inauguration and thereby win the war without firing a shot.  Edwin Stanton, also later in Lincoln's cabinet, was in Buchanan's cabinet, privy to the treasonous conversations going on in the Oval office, and secretly relaying that information to Seward.  Seward's actions were instrumental in preserving the union before the war even started.

From day one of his administration, Lincoln and Seward had a close working relationship, going so far as Lincoln allowing Seward to modify the language in his inaugural address.  Their on going collaboration was vital throughout the conduct of the war, especially in meeting the goal of keeping the border states in the union.

What's more, Seward had previously traveled extensively in Europe, his strong abolitionist stance opening many doors on the continent.  He used those connections effectively in preventing England and France from recognizing the Confederacy, and otherwise convincing them to stay neutral in the war.

The night Lincoln was assassinated, another assassin on the team tried to kill William Seward and his son.  He used a knife and stabbed the Secretary repeatedly in the face.  The only reason it did not kill him was that he had recently suffered a broken jaw in a carriage accident, and had a metal brace on his jaw which deflected the knife from hitting his jugular vein.  His son was even more grievously wounded but both men survived the assault.  Their family, however, did not.  Due to the tremendous stress, his wife Frances, a fine and noble woman who supported her husband in every issue, died six weeks later.  His daughter also died shortly thereafter. 

Seward recovered and stayed on as Secretary of State under Andrew Johnson, which is how he was in a position to arrange and conclude our purchase of Alaska.  He died in 1872 at 71 years of age.

Much of the information in this essay was gleaned from reading “Team of Rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin (can't be recommended highly enough).  On the cover of that book is a posed photo of Lincoln and his cabinet, with Lincoln and Seward seated and facing toward each other.  After reading the book, one might be struck (as I was) by the notion that arguably the greatest man in that photo is William Seward.

So why isn't he already remembered highly.  Well, history has a way of being written by the winners, and the survivors. In the chaos of war and reconstruction, and the national grief at President Lincoln's death, a lot of Seward's deeds got forgotten.  What's more, virtually none of his family survived the tumultuous times to fight for his memory.

So it is time that we remember him, today.  What's more, even though he and this author are both White, it is totally fitting for his life to be remembered during Black History Month, because William Henry Seward deserves as much or more credit for preserving the union and ending slavery as anyone, including Abraham Lincoln.  He had a huge and positive impact on Black history. He was not only one of the greatest Americans ever born, he was one of the most noble human beings in history.    The contributions of such leaders should never be forgotten.

 

On a related note, let me add.  A lot of White folks kind of don't like Black History Month, with the yearly refrain of “why don't we have White history month?”

I rather enjoy learning of Black leaders and exceptional figures from the past.  I had never heard of folks like Roberts Smalls, or Harriet Tubman before Black History Month began, and I am better for learning of their contributions.  Rather than ending this yearly history lesson, I hope it can be expanded to include truly great people, like William Seward, from all quarters of our national history.  I know the Native American leader Crazy Horse should be more highly remembered.  Ceasar Chavez, and others of various ethnic groups, including many Whites, should likewise not be forgotten.  Maybe instead of Black History Month, or focusing any other particular group, let us transition to a never ending history lesson every day that reminds us of all the great figures from our collective past.  This will be a unifying way of reminding us of who we are, where we came from, how we got here, and maybe even help us in deciding where we want to go in the future.