Tag: history

Categories
life

Winning the Contest

Yesterday at church was apparently a contest of wills between Isaac and me. He was acting up and causing a disturbance in sacrament meeting and I took him outside. Eventually he won his way back in only to have Laura take him out a few minutes later after renewed disturbance. Laura came back in a few minutes later sans Isaac and informed me that Isaac only wanted me. I went outside to where he was sitting and talked to him. He wanted to go home and take a nap. As we talked I explained to him that he was tired because he had been struggling with me in a struggle that he could not win. I told him that I did not want to take him home but that I would be happy to let him take a nap in my arms. Due to his continued sobbing I finally asked if he would be willing to take a short nap at home and come back in time for the last hour of church. He agreed to that and I collected Enoch (so that Laura would not have to take care of the baby while teaching her Sunday School class) and left as sacrament meeting was drawing to a close.

As soon as we got home and closed the garage door Isaac announced that: “I won the contest.” I asked him what contest he was talking about and he told me he won the contest with me about us going home.

Not to be outdone I decided to turn the tables on Isaac. (Yes, that’s dad, competing with his three year old in mind games.) I asked Isaac if the whole idea was to win the contest. He said that it was and so I asked if we could go back to church now that he had won the contest. He agreed. I quickly took the opportunity to put in my contacts (that I had forgotten before church) and then we went back to church before the chapel had even cleared from the meeting.

As we parked Isaac said that he wanted to go home and take a nap. I reminded him that he had already won the contest and had agreed to come back because of that so he went in and I took him to primary. I was feeling pretty proud of myself – I figured that I had won the contest after all – although I would not say such a thing to Isaac. Later I saw Laura in the hall between meetings and I explained how we had been able to come back to church so quickly because of Isaac winning the contest. After we got home from church Isaac announced to Laura that: “Dad won the contest.”

Apparently he recognized that he had been outmaneuvered even without me rubbing it in.

Categories
life meta

Backfilling

When I came back to WordPress in February of 2007 the focus of the site (Recovering Technophile) was technology and social/political commentary. I imported my writing from the blogger blog I was leaving and those posts which fit that focus from my earlier blogs. After the technology portion withered and the politics portion blossomed I spun off the political blog – what had become Pursuit of Liberty – and removed most of the posts from that spinoff that had no connection to politics. Here I could now focus on personal, spiritual, and other topics without reservation. In that spirit I finally got around to importing my posts from those ancient blogs (2005 and earlier) so that I have over 100 “new” posts here (an additional 12.5%) in the last 24 hours.

Those who are curious can poke around my archives, but I suspect that I will be the only person who recognizes any benefit from this. I will be tagging and categorizing those posts (since tagging was non-existant and my categories from multiple blogs are disorganized) but I have all the old blog posts here now that I am ever likely to get (I would say all of them, but I leave open the possibility that some have been lost in all the shuffling). I will also be going through my journals and making some old journal entries available here as I see fit so my archives are going to start stretching into the past – potentially as far back as 1980. (That’s about when my earliest journal entries are – I don’t know yet what I will be making available.)

Categories
National politics

Original Intent

While I fully agree that the Electoral College was not an arbitrary decision and should not be abolished, I also think that we need to articulate the arguments in favor of the Electoral College better than simply stating:

Our Forefathers specifically wanted the STATES to elect the President and Vice President, not the general public.

That argument is about as compelling as the argument often used by those who want to abolish the Electoral College that we have the means to count every vote today (as if addition had not been invented back in 1789). Our Founding Fathers did want the states to elect the President and Vice President, but they also wanted the states to elect Senators. We passed the 17th Amendment to change that for Senators so reading history books may tell us that the Electoral College was a conscious choice by the founders, but those same history books also remind us that we have ignored the founders in the past and we could do so again in the 28th Amendment.

Categories
politics

Articles of Confederation

In the midst of my efforts to evaluate all the Federalist Papers, I realized that I had never read the Articles of Confederation which was the basis against which the Constitution was written and against which the Federalist Papers were generally basing their arguments.

The Articles of Confederation were the first attempt by the states at an independent and unified central government. As I have watched the rise of the European Union I have often thought that Europe was trying to recreate the structure of the United States government among their member states. As I read the Articles of Confederation I realize that what they have built looks much more like the Unites States from 1777 to 1788 under those articles than the United States after 1788 under the Constitution.

I will probably do more evaluation in a comparative fashion while reviewing the Federalist Papers and the Constitution, but a few points of interest that struck me as I read include:

    • Article 5 – The states determine the size of their congressional delegation (from 2 to 7) but each state has a single vote. Even more interesting were the term limits placed on each delegate – they could serve no more than 3 years out of any 6.
    • Article 9 – The congress of the united states, besides being the legislative body of the nation, served as the executive power for the nation (insofar as there was any executive power), and was charged with adjudicating, or establishing a temporary court to adjudicate, any dispute between two states – thus serving as (or controlling) the judicial branch of government.
    • Article 11 – Canada was explicitly invited to join the united states if it desired to but any other colony could join without the consent of 9 of the states.
Categories
culture

April Fools Day

I’m not sure exactly why, but I can never bring myself to make anything of April Fools Day. I try to be careful that I don’t buy into any of the prank news stories that float around and I certainly don’t mind the fact that lots of people have fun with this holiday, but I don’t think I’ve ever pulled a significant April Fools joke of my own.

That puts me in a quandary. I am hesitant to write anything serious lest it be ignored as a joke and I have no desire to force some wit into my writing. Maybe I can luck out like last year. I didn’t even remember that it was April Fools Day, but as I look back at what I posted I can see that it was rather amusing.

Categories
politics

The Declaration of Independence

I doubt that I could add any new commentary on The Declaration of Independence but in reading it again I was reminded of why there are only three paragraphs with which most people have any familiarity (the first two and the last one) – all the rest of the declaration is filled with statements that are specific to the situations of that time. The one thing that really struck me as I read was that as we talk about revolution or change in government we should apply the same standards that are outlined in this declaration. First, we must recognize the purpose of government:

. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

Second, as we work to effect a change of government we should remember how and when that should be undertaken:

. . . whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes . . . But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

In case anyone is not clear on the point – I don’t think our situation warrants abolishing our government as currently established – partially because we have have established methods for regular transitions of power. What I do believe is that because of our system of citizen involvement and established and regular transfers of power it is our never-ending duty to pay attention to the way that government is altered and to revoke previous alterations in cases where they prove to be either destructive or ineffective for their desired purpose. Always in our efforts to make or unmake alterations we should be looking back to the original statement of the purpose of government.

One final observation – the rights listed as examples of the unalienable rights of all men are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the responsibility of government to secure happiness for each but to ensure their right to pursue happiness as they define it.

Categories
life

Leap Day

After I hit the “Publish” button I realized that this is the first leap day since I started blogging. Amazing that it’s been almost 4 years (since June 2004) and this is the first February 29th.

Categories
politics

Liberty Or Death

How many people, like me, are only familiar with little more than the final sentence of this speech by Patrick Henry? It contains very little in the way of political policy or ideas, but a very good sketch of the character of the men who built our nation. How many citizens today are too busy to be bothered with understanding or maintaining the liberty which those men held in such high regard?

. . . it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth . . . For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

As I read the words of the speech I began to ask myself, would we even recognize if our freedom were under assault today as theirs was then? It is especially important considering that our freedom is most likely to be abridged, not by a government based across the ocean from us, but one in our own land; one often held up as an example of government over what many call the most liberated society in history.

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

If we do recognize a real danger will we have the courage to take action or is our character such that we would bow to the conventional wisdom which would undoubtedly tell us that we are too weak to make a change?

It should be no wonder to any of us that a patriot would say “give me liberty, or give me death,” if they have seen, as our founders had, that the war was already begun and that the options for an equitable peace had already been exhausted.

Categories
life

Historical Doldrums

I continuing my study of the documents listed at USHistory.org I came to the conclusion that neither the Letter from Columbus announcing his arrival in the West Indies, nor The Mayflower Compact really qualify in my mind as founding documents. The letter from Columbus has no political content at all. I was not really surprised by that, I had simply not noticed it in the list before. I had expected to find some insights in the Mayflower Compact but the only idea worth thinking about is the basic idea of the compact which was that the signers pledged to work together for the good of the colony rather than seeking their own personal comfort at the expense of others. I would think that arriving in a foreign land with no hope of contact with civilization that idea would be human instinct 101.

Though I was less than impressed with those documents, I have now arrived at documents from the 18th century so I hope to see more ideas that influenced the development of the society that brought us the constitution upon which our government is supposed to be based.

Categories
politics

Magna Carta

I don’t intend to review these historical documents each day, but I do want  to get started and I decided to go basically in historical order. Ever since I wrote yesterday I have been intrigued by the first of these documents – the Magna Carta or Great Charter. Prior to today I had never given more than a cursory look at the actual text of the Magna Carta, mostly for me it has just been an ancient document that helped establish the foundation of freedom upon which the Constitution was built. It appears that there were two versions, one given in 1215 and then a revised version – omitting some sections – in 1225.

The Magna Carta establishes the independence of the church from the control of the king although I would have to study my history to see what that meant in practical terms. It also addresses the laws pertaining to inheritance and the payment of debts protecting heirs (especially heirs under the legal age) and debtors from having their property taken unduly. It also established the rights of widows to own common property upon the deaths of their husbands.

Based on the 13th section (the original document had no such breaks) it appears that the people of the city of London had gained some freedoms that were unusual for the time. The Magna Carta dictated that all cities should enjoy the same privileges as London had obtained.

I find what appear to be precursors to a judicial system that allowed for standardized punishment, juries (four local knights were the prescribed jury here) and possibly a system for appeals. Free men were given the right of a trial by a jury of their peers before they could be imprisoned or stripped of their rights. Also included was a provision that fines should be “only in proportion to the degree of his offence[sic], and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood.”

Government officers are prevented from taking goods for the government without the consent of the owner and appropriate compensation. They were also required to produce witnesses besides themselves in order to put a person on trial.

Standards of measurement and value were to be established throughout the kingdom.

Except in time of war, merchants were to be allowed free passage into and out of the country – so long as they did not swear allegiance to another country.

A congress of 25 barons was to be established (perhaps a precursor to the House of Lords) which had the authority to seek redress if the king should break any of the provisions of the Magna Carta. They also had the authority to seize anything save the members of the royal family if redress was not given within 40 days after they notified the king of any offense against this charter. I particularly like this portion:

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command. (emphasis mine)

More historical information – such as the fact that it was renounced soon afterwards by the king and that many parts of it were repealed in the 18th and 19th centuries (no wonder the American colonies broke away in the late 18th century) – can be found in Wikipedia under Magna Carta and 1215. Another interesting fact was that it was (closely) based on the Charter of Liberties given by Henry I.