Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

Americans in Paris: Thomas Jefferson

17 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in The Enlightenment, The French Revolution, The United States

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

Stone sign affixed on the rue Jacob building
Stone sign affixed on the rue Jacob building (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In this building, formerly the York Hotel [Paris], on 3 September 1783, David Hartley, in the name of the king of England, and Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams, in the name of the United States of America, signed the definitive peace treaty recognizing the independence of the United States.

 —ooo—

Five years after Louis XVI hesitatingly signed the Treaty of Alliance (1778), which  ensured the future independence of a country to be named the United States of America, the Treaty of Versailles (sometimes called the Treaty of Paris) was signed at the Hôtel  d’York in Paris, a hotel that no longer exists, the above stone sign commemorates the victory of the young Republic. The Treaty of Versailles proclaimed the independence of the United States.

When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, in 1783, Thomas Jefferson had yet to assume his duties as United States Minister Plenipotentiary to France, an office now  known as that of Ambassador. Moreover, and ironically, France itself would not become a republic until 22 September 1792, and not under the best of circumstances.

The names engraved on the stone shown above are those of members of the American Delegation in Paris, architects of the United States of America:

  • Benjamin Franklin  (17 January 1706 – 17 April 1790), the “first American,” and perhaps the main artisan of an independent United States;
  • John Jay (12 December 1745 – 17 May 1829), of the American Delegation, the 2nd Governor of New York and an opponent of slavery;
  • John Adams (30 October 1735 – 4 July 1826), also of the American Delegation in Paris and the second President of the United States of America.

Representing Britain was David Hartley, King George III‘s plenipotentiary.

King George III of England, by Allan Ramsay

King George III of the United Kingdom, by Allan Ramsay (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Aftermath

It could be said that all parties gained from the Treaty of Versailles/Paris. The United States was an independent nation and Benjamin Franklin had made sure both France and England would be its trading partners. As for France, it had regained the prestige it lost when it ceded Canada to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Paris, signed in 1673, but Canada remained a British colony. However, in 1783, Benjamin Franklin did glance northwards. The mostly French-language British Province of Quebec shrank significantly. Please see the maps.[i]

Expansion

The United States would expand, but it would be to the west rather than the north. In 1803, under the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the United States would purchase Louisiana from France. Again, ironically, the groundwork for the Louisiana Purchase, was one of Thomas Jefferson’s contributions to the United States as Minister to France. Jefferson had kept alive an alliance with France. The French did not look upon the sale of Louisiana as a severe loss. Louisiana had been disputed territory between France and Spain and the United States needed a port to the south. In short, France would have lost Louisiana. It may therefore have been in its best interest to sell it. Am I writing this?

Thomas Jefferson, by Rembrandt Peale

Thomas Jefferson, by Rembrandt Peale (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thomas Jefferson

In May 1785, Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826), the 3rd President of the United States and a good friend of the Marquis de La Fayette, was installed as the United States Minister, or United States ‘Ambassador’ to France. Like his predecessor, Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson was a polymath who had read abundantly, played the violin, spoke several languages, but suffered violent attacks of migraine. He was a man of the Enlightenment and truly impressed the French, but not in the same manner as his predecessor, Benjamin Franklin, who was milling financial and military support for the American Revolutionary War, and did so as a “regular” in various French Salons and the Café Procope, major institutions in France, and importing racoon hats, “du nouveau,” something new, for the ladies of the French court and Salons. These ladies only wore the “trendy” and would not be caught otherwise. The French did however name Benjamin Franklin to the French Academy as an honorary member. As for Jefferson, his legacy would be one of the mind, to the French and to the world. I will not speak of his dependence on slaves.

Thomas Jefferson arrived in Paris in 1785 and left on 26 September 1789 in order to serve as the United States’ first Secretary of State, under George Washington (22 February 1732  – 14 December 1799). In other words, Jefferson left France a mere two weeks before Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, Prince de Talleyrand suggested, on 10 October 1789, that France resolve its financial crisis by confiscating the wealth of Church, which it did on 2 November 1789. During his stay in Paris, Jefferson was a witness to vain attempts on the part of Louis XVI to pay the huge debt accrued mainly because of wars it had fought, one of which was the American Revolutionary War. The American Revolutionary War was indeed a catalyst in the apocalyptic French Revolution. France had supported the future United States’ effort to break its ties with Britain. But who could have predicted a catastrophe that would ignore the liberalism of the Age of Enlightenment to persecute the clergy and the nobility, by killing thousands of its innocent citizens?

The American Declaration of Independence

Franklin was in France to rally the French to the American cause of independence from England. Such would not be Jefferson’s task. Given that he had drafted the American Declaration of Independence, a text reflecting the liberalism of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson’s main contribution to the French Revolution would be the lofty idealism he had contributed to the American Declaration of Independence, which he had drafted almost single-handedly. Jefferson was in a position to play an active role in the actual drafting of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen), a pivotal text in the history of France, written mainly by Jefferson’s friend, La Fayette, with assistance on the part of Thomas Jefferson, and issued on 26 August 1789, a month to the day before Jefferson left France to take up his duties as first American Secretary of State.

The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen is derivative. It is rooted in John Locke’s principles and, to a substantial extent, in Jean-Jacques Rousseau‘s Social Contract (1762), as is the American Declaration of Independence. At the very heart of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen is Jefferson’s “all men are created equal,” not in so many words, but in spirit. Equality was part of the motto of the French Revolution: liberté, égalité, fraternité, and it remains part of the motto of France. However it left room for a constitutional monarchy, the initial goal of the French Revolution. No one could have predicted such incivility as the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Nor could anyone have foreseen that the French Revolution would spin out of control to the point of regicide: the execution of Louis XVI.

Le Pressoir

Le Pressoir (The Pressurizer) (Photo credit: Google Images)

George Washington: the “Proclamation of Neutrality”

On 22 April 1793, after the execution of king Louis XVI (21 January 1793), George Washington issued a Proclamation of Neutrality. The United States declared it would remain neutral in conflicts between France and Great Britain and in Wars abroad. Americans breaking this rule could be prosecuted. (See Proclamation of Neutrality, Wikipedia.) Yet, the American Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, was a catalyst in the apocalyptic French Revolution. France had been the main financial and military supporter in the Americans’ effort to break their ties with Britain. But, again, who could have imagined a catastrophe that would ignore the liberalism of the Enlightenment and persecute the clergy and the nobility.

Therefore, would that the Parliament of Paris had ratified Charles Alexandre, vicomte de Calonne‘s proposal of imposing taxes across the board. Would, moreover, that the Assembly of Notables, created by Louis XVI, in 1787, had seen fit to implement universal taxation. Levying taxes from the First and Second Estates, the Church of France and its nobility, was the only solution to France’s financial crisis. Its participation in the American War of Independence cost France 1.3 billion livres.

In 1787, the Parliament of Paris refused to register Charles Alexandre, vicomte de Calonne‘s[ii] proposal to tax all three estates, the only way to remedy France’s desperate financial crisis. Louis XVI therefore created an Assembly of Notables, 144 individuals handpicked by him, whose duty it would be to save France from bankruptcy. The Marquis de La Fayette was a member of king Louis XVI’s Notables, but Louis’ élite team also refused across-the-board taxation. It was proposed, instead, that the matter of tax reform be handled by the Estates-General which had not convened since 1614.

“While the an [sic] Assembly of Notables had no legislative power in its own right, Calonne hoped that if the Assembly of Notables could be made to support the proposed reforms then this would apply pressure on parlement to register them. The plan failed, as the 144 Notables who made up the Assembly included Princes of the Blood, archbishops, nobles and other people from privileged positions in society, and they did not wish to bear the burden of increased taxation. The Assembly insisting that the proposed tax reforms had to be presented to a representative body such as an Estates General.” (See Assembly of Notables, in Wikipedia)  
 

Conclusion

To end this post, one could state that “the rest is history.” But it need be retold that, on 10 October 1789, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (and the Comte de Mirabeau) proposed that France confiscate the wealth of the Church and convert it into assignats: paper money, which was approved by the Assembly on 2 December 1789. Calonne’s proposal that all Estates be taxed turned into greater misery, the confiscation of the property of the Church of France. To harm the Church of France further, Talleyrand, a member of the clergy, l’évêque d’Autun (the bishop of Autun), also proposed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, a law passed on 12 July 1790. The Civil Constitution of the Clergy did not separate separate Church and State, a separation proposed by the Baron de Montesquieu, among others. Laïcité was part of the programme of the Enlightenment, but the Civil Constitution of the Clergy subjugated the Church of France to the State, which  was not laïcité.

By 12 July 1790, Thomas Jefferson was no longer the American Minister to France. His mission terminated on 26 September 1789, as indicated above.

To sum up, I need simply say that Thomas Jefferson was in Paris as he was in the United States: a superior mind. The video is about Thomas Jefferson.[iii]

Preliminary Treaty of Paris (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

Preliminary Treaty of Paris (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

____________________

[i] The Treaty of Versailles (1783) and the Redrawing of the Canada-US Border (Site for Language Management in Canada [SMLC]).

[ii] Calonne was Louis XVI’s Controller-General of Finances. He was appointed to this office in 1783. Jacques Necker, however, remained in the background.

[iii] Here is the text (short) of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence (just click). It completes the video.

Monticello, Jefferson's home designed by Jefferson

Monticello, Jefferson’s home designed by Jefferson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

© Micheline Walker
17 May 2014
WordPress 

Americans in Paris: Benjamin Franklin

14 Wednesday May 2014

Posted by in France, History, United States

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

French (left) and British ships (right) at the battle of the Chesapeake

French (left) and British ships (right) at the battle of the Chesapeake (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Battle of Chesapeake

The Battle of Chesapeake, fought on 5 September 1781, between a British fleet led by Rear Admiral Sir Thomas Graves KCB (c.1747 – 29 March 1814) and a French fleet led by Rear Admiral Francois-Joseph Paul, the Comte de Grasse, was a victory for American “patriots” and their French allies. (See The Battle of Chesapeake, Wikipedia.)

Although Louis XVI was reluctant to enter actively in the American War of Independence (19 April 1775 – 11 April 1783), he provided financial help to the fledgling North-American republic, as did the Netherlands, Spain and other nations. However, Louis XVI’s resolve not to engage in a costly war was weakened by such figures as Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes (20 December 1717 – 13 February 1787). The Seven Year’s War had so blemished France’s military might that when France entered the American Revolutionary War, its purpose may have been revenge. In 1778, France  recognized the independence of the Thirteen Colonies and, having been emboldened by the Battles of Saratoga (19 September and 7 October 1777), it entered the American War of Independence ferociously. (See Surrender of General Burgoyne, Wikipedia.)

La Fayette as a Lieutenant General, in 1791. Portrait by Joseph-Désiré Court

La Fayette as a Lieutenant General, in 1791. Portrait by Joseph-Désiré Court (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Benjamin Franklin

Associated with the American War of Independence were such figures as Benjamin Franklin (6 January 1706 –  April 17, 1790) and Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826), the third President of the United States. As for the French, they fought Britain enlisting the support of seasoned members of the Ancien Régime‘s military and, particularly, its rebuilt naval forces. Gilbert du Motier, marquis de la Fayette (6 September 1757 – 20 May 1834), is the name that comes to mind when we reflect on this part of American and French history. But other members of the French military also fought on behalf of the United States. In fact, the American Revolutionary War grew into a world war.

Benjamin was a hero to the French before he served as Minister to France (1776 – 1785), a position now referred to as that of ambassador. Franklin was a man of the Enlightenment and a Freemason. He participated in experiments made by French scientists, including Dr Guillotin[I] (28 May 1738 – 26 March 1814). He met Voltaire ((21 November 1694 – 30 May 1778), a fellow Freemason usually considered the leader of the French Enlightenment. Voltaire was approaching death at the time he met Franklin. Franklin was also received at Versailles, the home of the Royal Family, and knew every intellectual in Paris as well as salonniers and salonnières. He earned the title of “the first American.”

Franklin was a polymath, so he learned French easily. Moreover, he became an habitué, or regular, of the Café Procope. Benjamin Franklin loved France and quickly realized that in France much business and diplomacy was conducted in salons and cafés. He would be succeeded by Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826) as American Minister to France. When Jefferson arrived in Paris, with a few of his slaves, he announced that he was not replacing Benjamin Franklin but “succeeding” him. (See Thomas Jefferson, Wikipedia.) Franklin was also a favourite in the best of Salons. Women adored him.

Plaque honouring Benjamin Franklin at the Café Procope

Plaque honouring Benjamin Franklin at the Café Procope (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I am writing a post about Americans is Paris during the last two decades of the 18th  century. I will now return to my original article, but will post the above. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, ended the American War of Independence.

My computer failed me. The hard disk had to be replaced and, afterwards, software had to be reinstalled. It was a lengthy and exhausting process. So let this be an introduction to “Americans in Paris.”

Best regards to all of you.

____________________

[I] Dr Guillotin ( 28 May 1738 – 26 March 1814) was a proponent of painless capital punishment, but he did not invent the guillotine. Although it was named after him, the prototype for the guillotine was designed by Antoine Louis (13 February 1723 – 20 May 1792) and the guillotine was first called the louisette.

iStock_000015987445XSmall© Micheline Walker
14 May 2014
WordPress

 

The Old Plantation

18 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by in Art

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Old Plantation, attributed to Rose
The Old Plantation, attributed to John Rose (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Old Plantation, attributed to John Rose, possibly 1785-1795, Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Folk Art Museum, Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

Slaves and serfs made up around three-quarters of the world’s population at the beginning of the 19th century. (See Slavery, Wikipedia) 

Slavery: Resistance

I used this watercolor in a post dated 10 November 2013. From an artistic point of view, it is a lovely painting. Moreover, according to Wikipedia, “it is the only known painting of its era that depicts African-Americans by themselves, concerned only with each other.” (See The Old Plantation, Wikipedia.)

John Rose, the apparent and probable artist, was a Virginia slave owner who depicted not only “African Americans concerned only with each other,” but also enslaved human beings “resisting” their unfortunate condition. In other words, he portrayed resilience.

“Jumping the Broom”

It is difficult to tell with certainty what John Rose depicted in his “Old Plantation,” but it may be a traditional African marriage practice called jumping the broom. His painting shows slaves trying to have a life of their own. They were slaves, but they built a community, danced, played music, and kept their customs alive.

In other words, slavery was despicable, but many slaves rose above it.

Slavery 

It is not possible to exaggerate the wrongs of slavery in general and North-American slavery, in particular. For instance, if the plantation owner’s wife had a “headache,” she could be replaced. Slave owners often believed they owned the bodies of their slaves. In fact, some slave owners considered the Black they purchased as members of an inferior race. The Black were not altogether “human.”

466px-Remember_Your_Weekly_Pledge_Massachusetts_Anti-Slavey_Society_collection_box
Remember your Weekly Pledge
Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 

History

The history of slavery is a very complex topic. There have been many forms of slaves and slaves of many colors and, although serfdom, an international plight,  and slavery in North-America have been obliterated, [h]uman trafficking hasn’t. According to Wikipedia “[h]uman trafficking is primarily used for forcing women and children into sex industries.” In fact, debt-bondage  also remains a form of slavery and it has nothing to do with the color of one’s skin.  

The Wikipedia entry on slavery is extremely informative. There was chattel slavery and  indentured servants, persons who had borrowed money to move to the Americas, but were made to pay for a lifetime. There were children used as soldiers and forced to work. Surrogacy is yet another form of slavery as is the theft of organs and tissues, perhaps the latest form of human trafficking.

To simplify, however, we can reduce enslavement to three areas: forced labor, the sex industry and debt-bondage (poverty).  Also, we are looking at North-American enslavement mainly.

504px-Slaveshipposter-contrast
Slave Ship (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 

Slavery in North-America

North-American slaves were Black and they were used mainly as free and forced labor. They were captured in Africa, mostly West Africa, shipped like sardines to the Americas. They were sold mostly to plantation owners who made them work endless hours and often to death.

The condition of slaves differed from plantation to plantation, but all were human beings bought by human beings who had complete control over their lives and bodies. They were beasts of burden.

According to Wikipedia, “[a]n estimated 12 million Africans arrived in the Americas from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Of these, an estimated 645,000 were brought to what is now the United States. The usual estimate is that about 15% of slaves died during the voyage, with mortality rates considerably higher in Africa itself in the process of capturing and transporting indigenous people to the ships. Approximately 6 million black Africans were killed by others in tribal wars.” (See Slavery, Wikipedia.)

Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson (Photo credit: Virginia Historical Society)

The Declaration of Independence

The case of slavery in North-America is particularly sad.  Owning slaves, which had been deemed acceptable since settlers started to come to America, was suddenly in violation of the American Declaration of Independence (4 July 1776).

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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.”

The American Declaration of Independence  remains an ideal—there is no equality, but if “all men are created equal,”  enslavement could not be justified. In other words, federation could not be achieved unless slavery was abolished, which entailed the economic collapse of the Slave States.[i]

As a result, the Slave States, the South, confederated and started a war to preserve their economy, but although the Union, the North, won the war, ending slavery, a Union victory did impoverish former Slave States and, since  they had owned slaves, former slave owners felt their privileged lifestyle could not be taken away. I should think that many knew slavery was unacceptable, but it had been accepted and had made the plantation owner a wealthy man in a land that promised wealth. King Cotton!

Therefore, although Thomas Jefferson[ii] was able to pass the Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2nd March 1807) the year England passed the Slave Trade Act, in 1807, the abolition of slavery itself occurred later and incurred a war.

In England, 26 years separate the Slave Trade  Act of 1807 and the abolition of slavery, in 1833, but in North-America, the gap is longer: 58 years. Given new moral imperatives, rooted in the Age Enlightenment (the primacy of reason), the French Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité), and Romanticism (the primacy of sentiment or feelings), slavery had to be abolished.

800px-King_Cotton

— King Cotton (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Civil War

Consequently, the Slave States confederated, won the battle of Fort Sumter (12 -14 April 1861), but lost the war (9 April 1865). Confederacy General Robert E. Lee (19 January 1807 – 12 October 1870) surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant (27 April 1822 – 23 July 1885) at Appomattox Courthouse on 9 April 1865, six days before President-elect Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, on 15 April 1865. Slavery had been abolished, but the state of the Union was fragile. Robert E. Lee is as much a hero to Americans as Ulysses S. Grant. But slavery was an evil. One’s life and body belong to oneself.    

From Slavery to Racism, but…

The Emancipation Proclamation (1863), signed by President Lincoln on 1st January 1863, gave their freedom to the slaves inhabiting the Slave States (11) and the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) would eradicate slavery, but the Union’s victory fueled racism and led to segregation.  The Ku Klux Klan has not closed shop, there have been too many cases of lynching, and there are voter purges.  No “Act” can do away with racism.

Slavery and segregation have ended in the eyes of the law: but a de jure victory is not necessarily a de facto victory. Yet, President Obama, an African-American, is the duly elected President of the United States and that is a fact. Moreover, although the Affordable Care Act is imperfect, Affordable Care has begun. It may have to be taken out of the hands of Insurance Companies, except for the little extras, but it exists.   

Conclusion

Humankind’s resilience and its wish to be happy are such that victims themselves seek and find little pleasures. Even in the days of slavery, there were fine friendships, and even love, between the Black and the White, not to mention the slave owner and the slave. Harriet Beecher Stowe‘s Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) may contain stereotypes, but it shows immense sympathy toward the Black. Joel Chandler Harris, the author of Uncle Remus: His Songs and His Sayings (1880) and other Uncle Remus stories, was influenced by Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. These books are testimonials. 

The painting at the top of this post is not a lie. There had to be an “Old Plantation” and there is.

The new slave is the son or daughter who cannot afford the house in which he or she was raised.        

_________________________
[i] The Confederacy included South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas. After the Confederacy’s victory at Fort Sumter, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina seceded from the United States or the “Union.”  
[ii] Although Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves, he was an abolitionist.
 
 
images
 
© Micheline Walker
November 17, 2013
WordPress
 
 
 

“Sorry, Chancellor Merkel”

30 Wednesday Oct 2013

Posted by in United States

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

504px-John_O'Sullivan
  

The Manifest Destiny

  
John L. O’Sullivan, (15 November 1813 – 24 March 1895) sketched in 1874, was an influential columnist as a young man, but he is now generally remembered only for his use of the phrase “manifest destiny” to advocate the annexation of Texas and   Oregon. (See Manifest Destiny, Wikipedia.)
  

Micheline is sad, says Belaud the cat. She is sad because she does not think President Obama knew to what extent practices, proponents of the “Manifest Destiny” would have allowed, were used by United States President George W. Bush.  

She also thinks that, in all likelihood, abusive surveillance continued after Barack Obama was elected President of the United States because he did not know the US was listening in on the entire world, including its friends. We need to trust at least a few persons and nations, which fully explains Chancellor Merkel’s reaction. President Obama knew he had to protect his people, but may not have been aware that the NSA (National Security Agency) was monitoring Chancellor Merkel’s mobile telephone.

“Now Micheline” I said, “you know very well that people hear what they want or wish to hear and that the manner in which a message is understood depends largely on the way it is formulated. He may not have known.” 

“Manifest Destiny”

The term “Manifest Destiny” was coined by John O’Sullivan in the July-August 1845 issue of his United States Magazine and Democratic Review and, according to William Earl Weeks,[i] quoted in Wikipedia, its three themes were the following:

  1. The special virtues of the American people and their institutions;
  2. America’s mission to redeem and remake the world in the image of America;
  3. A divine destiny under God’s direction to accomplish this wonderful task.

Thomas Jefferson

Founding father Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826) was a proponent of the “Manifest Destiny.” Yet, he owned hundreds of slaves and fathered six children with slave Sally Hemings (c. 1773 – 1835). Four survived to adulthood, at which point they were freed. Sally Hemings was of mixed ancestry and the children were “seven-eighths European in ancestry” and white in appearance. (See Sally Hemings, Wikipedia.)  But he did not free Sally Hemings. She would have been auctioned off, had Jefferson’s daughter, Martha Washington Jefferson Randolph, not freed her.

George W. Bush

I also told Micheline that, although former US President George W. Bush (born July 6, 1946) adhered, knowingly or unknowingly, to the concept of the “Manifest Destiny” (see Manifest Destiny, Wikipedia), after the events of 9/11, former President G. W. Bush may have felt very distraught which could have led him to enter Iraq, a sovereign country. He was the President of the United States, its Commander-in-Chief, the US had been attacked by terrorists, and he had been influenced by the “Manifest Destiny.” 

And now we have learned that former President G. W. Bush did not know how far he could go too far. He let the NSA (National Security Agency) monitor the telephones of allies of the United States. If an individual adheres to the notions set forth in the “Manifest Destiny,” there is a risk that individual will not know that his or her rights end where the rights of others begin.  

President George W. Bush may not have been as great a president as Thomas Jefferson, but I’m quite certain he will never be made to answer for his actions. All is right under the mantle of the “Manifest Destiny,” which is why Micheline fears the notion of exceptionalism. 

Conclusion

“Don’t worry, Micheline, President Obama will do all that is needed to regain the confidence of his allies. Yes, some people will use this opportunity to fault him, but it will not work.  Too large a number of United States citizens will see the truth. What is really sad, Micheline, is that we have extremists right here who threaten Canadian unity.” 

Remember McCarthyism

“The term McCarthyism, coined in 1950 in reference to Joseph McCarthy‘s practices, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities. Today the term is used more generally in reference to demagogic, reckless, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents.” (See Joseph McCarthy, Wikipedia.)

The bottom line, Belaud said, is that one can fully expect citizens who insist on carrying firearms also to monitor their friend’s telephone conversations.

RELATED ARTICLES

______________________________
[i] Weeks, William Earl, Building the continental empire: American expansion from the Revolution to the Civil War (Ivan R. Dee, 1996).
 
The Little Drummer Boy, by William Morris Hunt, 1862
Photo credit: Wikipedia
 
display_image             

Manifest Destiny

 
American-Flag_Flat_
© Micheline Walker & Belaud
29 October 2013
WordPress

More on the Second Amendment

12 Saturday Jan 2013

Posted by in Sharing, United States

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Charles Marion Russell

Breaking Camp, by Charles Marion Russell

Charles Marion Russell  (March 19, 1864 – October 24, 1926)
Frederic Sackrider Remington (October 4, 1861 – December 26, 1909)
(co-featured in the video at the bottom of this post)
Photo credit: Wikipedia
(please click on small images to enlarge them)
 

The Second Amendment flawed, but…

I have reread the Second Amendment, and it seems to me that it lacks coherence.

As drafted by James Madison,  (16 March  1751 – 28 June 1836), the fourth President of the United States (4 March 1809 – 4 March 1817), and passed by Congress (25 September 1789), the second amendment read as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified (15 December 1791) by Thomas Jefferson (13 April 1743 – 4 July 1826), then Secretary of State, but later the third President of the United States (4 March 1801 – 4 March 1809), it read and still reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The two versions do not differ from one another except for two capital letters: Militia and State, removed by Thomas Jefferson, and the removal of a comma after “arms.” However, both seem flawed.

The Flaw

Here is the problem. The Second Amendment states that “[a] well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state,” but it fails to state explicitly that such a militia did not exist when settlers started to travel west of the Mississippi. The words “free state,” are followed immediately by the words: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Allow me to quote the Second Amendment again.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In other words, the Second Amendment (see Bill of Rights) does not contain a clause to the effect that there was no “well regulated militia,” in the early years of Western expansion. Without that clause, it would be my opinion that the Second Amendment is not formulated clearly and that it could be misinterpreted.  In fact, 222 years later and with the presence of law-enforcement agencies, it would also be my opinion that the Second Amendment is de facto unenforceable, not to say mostly irrelevant.

Indeed, having said the above, I doubt very much that Thomas Jefferson would have considered settlers “[a] well regulated militia.” I believe therefore that the first part of the sentence, ie. “[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” infers that in 1791 there was no “well regulated militia” and that this first part of the sentence was understood as inferring that such a militia did not exist.

In short, the historical context may clarify the Second Amendment but, if read out of context and literally, the amendment may convey the wrong message and may be misinterpreted or used in bad faith and to the detriment of the nation. This has long been the case among members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). I should also note that people tend to read or hear messages according to their expectations, which is an interfering agent labelled noise.

“Communication requires that the communicating parties share an area of communicative commonality.  The communication process is complete once the receiver has understood the message of the sender.”[i]

Buccaroos, by Charles Marion Russell

Buccaroos, by Charles Marion Russell

Attack on a Wagon Train, by Charles Marion Russell

Attack on a Wagon Train, by Charles Marion Russell

 

Hobbes’ “State of Nature”

However, even rephrased, the Second Amendment remains “flawed.”

It could well be that in their attempt to get to the best land first and claim it for themselves, our settlers bearing arms may have been in Thomas Hobbes‘ state of nature. “In that state, each person would have a right, or license, to everything in the world, and therefore, lack of a rule of law.” (Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, I.13 & 14)

One assumes that a “well regulated militia” and a social contract, ie. a rule of law, would precede the arrival of settlers.  If militias are difficult to regulate, imagine scattered armed settlers facing either baffled and indignant Amerindians or settlers competing for a piece of land, a piece of land that had been the Amerindian’s hunting-ground.  Amerindians whose territory was shrinking did massacre settlers. Under such circumstances, and settlers being armed, how could one avoid a “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes)? 

The real and the Mythical Wild West

Western expansion has often been idealized.

“It is a tale of conquest, but also one of survival, persistence, and the merging of peoples and cultures that gave birth and continuing life to America.”[ii]

Not quite!  There may not have been a duel once or twice a week, but there was both a real Wild West and a mythical Wild West, a Wild West created by the collective imagination and marketed convincingly by Hollywood. “No other nation,” says David Murdoch, “has taken a time and place from its past and produced a construct of the imagination equal to America’s creation of the West.”[iii]

Author Waddy W. Moore uses court records to show that on the sparsely settled Arkansas frontier lawlessness was common. He distinguished two types of crimes: unprofessional (dueling, crimes of drunkenness, selling whiskey to the Indians, cutting trees on federal land) and professional (horse stealing, highway robbery, counterfeiting).[iv]

Therefore, with respect to Western expansion, it would appear the founding fathers put the cart before the horse. Settlers went westwards before the arrival of a militia, not the other way around. Besides, the Manifest Destiny also militated against the rule of law. Americans were made to believe that they were destined to expand all the way to the Pacific. Yet Waddy W. Moore also writes that “once convicted, punishment was severe.”[v]  So, at some point, earlier than later I should think, the long arm of the law did reach a mostly untamed West. 

Conclusion

Given that Second Amendment lacks clarity, I believe it is flawed. Respect for the founding fathers has led me to state that “[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” the opening phrase of the Second Amendment, inferred that there was no “well regulated militia[,]” which may have been the case, but truth be told, the Second Amendment does not indicate that a “well regulated militia” did not exist.

But…

However, although the Second Amendment does not state that there was no well-regulated militia in the territories that were about to be settled, the Second Amendment did not transform settlers into a militia. It goes no further than allowing settlers the right to bear arms to protect themselves. But times have changed. What could protect settlers now endangers the life of innocent little children. So would that the Second Amendment had stated that in the absence and only in the absence of a “well regulated militia[,]” settlers could bear arms!

Yet, as drafted by James Madison and ratified by Thomas Jefferson, the third and fourth Presidents of the United States respectively, central to the Second Amendment is the notion of security: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Such is the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment.  It may be flawed, but only in part.  When all is said and done, the Second Amendment is about security, every one’s security, but particularly the security of little children whose safety now demands that private citizens not bear arms, which is in keeping with the aforementioned spirit and letter of the Second Amendment.

Consequently, as I noted above, there is measure of bad faith on the part of members of the National Rifle Association. The boys are playing “cowboys and Indians” putting at risk the life of little children and in clear violation of the Second Amendment. Allow me to repeat that although the Second Amendment is flawed, security constitutes its chief component and main concern.

Instead of lobbying Washington, all four and a half million members of the National Rifle Association should visit the bereaved families of Newtown and apologize.  Moreover, instead of putting money in the pockets of politicians, members of the National Rifle Association should compensate the families of Newtown. Some mothers and fathers will not recover sufficiently to earn a living and some may require medical treatment.

_________________________

[i]  Robert V. Hine and John Mack Faragher, The American West: A New Interpretive History (Yale University Press, 2000) p 10.  Quoted in Wikipedia, “The American Frontier.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication
 
[ii] Waddy W. Moore, “Some Aspects of Crime and Punishment on the Arkansas Frontier,” Arkansas Historical Quarterly (1964) 23#1 pp 50-64. Quoted in Wikipedia, “The American Frontier.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Frontier
[iii] David Murdoch, The American West: The Invention of a Myth (2001) page vii. Quoted in Wikipedia, “The American Frontier.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Frontier
[iv] Waddy W. Moore, op. cit.
[v] Ibid.
  
© Micheline Walker
12 January 2013
WordPress
 
— A Desperate Stand, by Charles Marion Russell

A Desperate Stand, by Charles Marion Russell

 
 
Related articles