Our Founding Fathers- What did they really say?

A couple of weeks ago, your local Grouchy Historian was invited to take part in a conversation sponsored by some new readers who belong to the Arizona Tea Party.  They have a pretty excellent web site with a very, very lively discussion on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

Of course, Constitutional history and law are not subjects I am completely comfortable with, so I quickly had to get up to speed.  Enter my favorite place on the Internet, AMAZON, and of course, new books.

So I found this wonderful little gem, The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution.  Although it is a slim volume, it is packed full of so much goodness that it may take three blog posts to cover everything.

Where to begin?  Well, progressives, revisionist historians, and general liberal mischief makers and big government worshippers will say, "Oh, the Constitution, that ancient document was written by a bunch of white, male, slave holding rich men...what do they know?"  OR "Well, the Constitution is very vague, so we don't really know what it means, so let's just make things up the way WE THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE."  Neither of these is true of course, but our public school system is so broken when it comes to teaching history, most students today probably have no idea who James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were...but I bet they know who Caesar Chavez and Che Guevara were.   Sigh, but I digress.....as Mr. McClanahan lays out in clear, very compelling language, we can indeed discover EXACTLY what our Founding Fathers intended each and every Article and Clause of the Constitution to accomplish and how and why they argued about it during the Ratification debates exemplified by the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers which my new Arizona brethren debate with such zeal.

The first thing that I usually do when I read a book on a new topic or from a new author is flip to the bibliography to check the sources.  The author has drawn primarily from the magisterial works  The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and The Debates in the Several State Conventions of the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.

The author writes the chapters topically, covering the legislative, executive and judicial branches, followed by some other topics of interest.  What I really like about the book is that the author lets our Founding Fathers do the talking as much as possible, with minimal analysis or pontificating by the author.

So let's dive right in....

The first thing I learned is the background to how Senators were originally chosen.  Clearly the founders had ONE overarching thing in the back of their mind when they formed our wonderful Constitution--What the overall role of the new national government was to be and how it was to relate to the states.  Our Founders jealously guarded the powers of the states, at least most of the Founders did, and the makeup of the Senate was intended to be a major balancing point for the new Federal government.

By having the state legislatures choose Senators, the Founders intended for Senators to represent their STATES first and not the interests of the government or other outside interests.  Of course, not everyone agreed with this plan, and some feared that Senators would become too entwined with the government.   George Mason said-"Is it not probable, that those Gentlemen who will be elected Senators will fix themselves in the federal town, and become citizens of that town more than of our State?" (p.26)

Hmm, profound, no?  So, now the 17th Amendment becomes more clear to me and why it is not necessarily a good thing, even though Progressives sold it as more democratic means of electing Senators.  I mean I have never done the math, but it appears to me that if we did not have the 17th Amendment, Obamacare, the Porkulus and much of the mischief of this Administration would not have come to pass.  Not to mention a good deal of other Progressive nonsense of the last 100 years or so.

The author also goes into some detail on the "Commerce Clause," "General Welfare Clause," and "Necessary and Proper Clause."  Now, again, I am not a constitutional lawyer or scholar, but I definitely commend the author for stepping through these topics and laying out in pretty clear terms why they were worded as they are and how far we have strayed from their original meeting, in particular how Progressives have distorted and downright LIED about the power that Congress should have.  It is interesting to note that originally Congress was only intended to regulate international and inter-state commerce.  There was never any intent for INTRAstate commerce to be regulated by Congress--that responsibility was to be reserved for the states.  So, for Progressives this is something that can not be tolerated.

The other very interesting discussion concerned the use of paper money and coinage.  Our Founders were very concerned with not only retiring the debt caused by the Revolution, but NOT incurring further debt, at least not lightly.  "Brutus," one of the primary authors of the Anti-Federalist papers, likely to have been Robert Yates, a New York judge, said it best-"I  can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befal this country, than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge." (p.52)

Again, pretty darn prophetic huh?  Clearly our current Congresscritters should read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers again, cuz we sure are accumulating debt that we are likely to NEVER, EVER be able to pay back...at least not without becoming the Weimar Republic.  I, for one, do not relish the idea of dragging around wheel barrows of money.

Of course, as a historian, after reading this first section, I can understand why they were written, as our Founding Fathers ASSUMED that everyone clearly understood the division of powers between the states and the national government concerning taxes, commerce, and economic liberty.  Clearly, this is no longer the case.

There is much more to read and learn from this section, most of it material I did not really understand until I digested this section of the book.  Congress is only the first of the three branches of government that has overstepped its boundaries as originally intended.

More on the Executive and Judicial Branches to come....

Federalist #11- GOOOO NAVY

Okay, two topics this week near and dear to me.  Yup, Federalist #11 specifically deals with the need for a strong Navy (woohoo, Go Navy Beat Army, had to say that) and continues the thread begun in Federalist #10 on the role of the new federal government in facilitating and improving commerce.

The Anti-Federalist #11 is another one of those EXTREMELY profound papers decrying the potential for abuse of power of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.  NAH, we'd never have judges legislating from the bench and passing their own weird, made up ideas of rights and social justice...nah....

Federalist #11
So the real purpose of this prose is an 18th century version of trade wars, or the ol' mercantilism.  As usual, in our historical ignorance, we think that trade imbalance, free trade, and opening up new markets are 21st century issues.  They are, of course, but America has been involved in trade disputes, contests for open markets, and hostile trading adversaries since our founding.

"There are appearances to authorize a supposition that the adventurous spirit, which distinguishes the commercial character of America, has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe. They seem to be apprehensive of our too great interference in that carrying trade, which is the support of their navigation and the foundation of their naval strength. Those of them which have colonies in America look forward to what this country is capable of becoming, with painful solicitude. They foresee the dangers that may threaten their American dominions from the neighborhood of States, which have all the dispositions, and would possess all the means, requisite to the creation of a powerful marine. Impressions of this kind will naturally indicate the policy of fostering divisions among us, and of depriving us, as far as possible, of an ACTIVE COMMERCE in our own bottoms. This would answer the threefold purpose of preventing our interference in their navigation, of monopolizing the profits of our trade, and of clipping the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness. Did not prudence forbid the detail, it would not be difficult to trace, by facts, the workings of this policy to the cabinets of ministers."

So, what did our founders do...well nothing for a while, then during the late 1790s they decided to unleash the first of our future whup ass naval forces and manly men...or wooden ships and iron men, as it were. 

"To this great national object, a NAVY, union will contribute in various ways. Every institution will grow and flourish in proportion to the quantity and extent of the means concentred towards its formation and support."

As mentioned in my post on Federalist #10, not only were issues occurring with Britain, but when the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars broke out, the US found itself in the uncomfortable position of being on the Naval business end of our erstwhile allies in France during an undeclared naval war.  Then, of course, there was the ongoing fight with the Barbary pirates.  This is a topic of some interest to me, since our ignorant, lefty, mushy schools won't teach the TRUTH about America's on-again, off-again war with Islamic terrorists, pirates, thugs and murders. 

But I digress...needless to say, once America's navy was reborn in the 1790s, it has protected commerce, served America's interests and pretty much kicked the crap out of our enemies for 200 years....an idea I am firmly in favor of...


Anti-Federalist #11.

Hmm, there's so much good stuff here, I don't know where to start...the writer was clearly concerned with the nature of the federal courts, particularly the lifetime nature of judges with little recourse to recall nitwits, commies, and buffoons.

The real effect of this system of government, will therefore be brought home to the feelings of the people, through the medium of the judicial power. It is, moreover, of great importance, to examine with care the nature and extent of the judicial power, because those who are to be vested with it, are to be placed in a situation altogether unprecedented in a free country. They are to be rendered totally independent, both of the people and the legislature, both with respect to their offices and salaries. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.

The only causes for which they can be displaced, is, conviction of treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is only the beginning!  The writer goes on to note that the fairly undefined nature of the judicial branch could very easily lead to abuses and usurpation of power relative to not only the other branches of the government, but, as the Founders always kept in their minds, the power of the STATES.

The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted.

That the judicial power of the United States, will lean strongly in favour of the general government, and will give such an explanation to the constitution, as will favour an extension of its jurisdiction, is very evident from a variety of considerations.

And, if that isn't enough goodness, the author, being one of those Founders who understood the greedy and sinful nature of man, does not assume that judges are immune from the lure of power and their own SUPERIOR intellect.

Not only will the constitution justify the courts in inclining to this mode of explaining it, but they will be interested in using this latitude of interpretation. Every body of men invested with office are tenacious of power; they feel interested, and hence it has become a kind of maxim, to hand down their offices, with all its rights and privileges, unimpared to their successors; the same principle will influence them to extend their power, and increase their rights; this of itself will operate strongly upon the courts to give such a meaning to the constitution in all cases where it can possibly be done, as will enlarge the sphere of their own authority. Every extension of the power of the general legislature, as well as of the judicial powers, will increase the powers of the courts; and the dignity and importance of the judges, will be in proportion to the extent and magnitude of the powers they exercise. I add, it is highly probable the emolument of the judges will be increased, with the increase of the business they will have to transact and its importance. From these considerations the judges will be interested to extend the powers of the courts, and to construe the constitution as much as possible, in such a way as to favour it; and that they will do it, appears probable.

This power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. — The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine.

 Yup, that last sentence is BOLDED and ENLARGED, cuz people need to wake the hell up...we have become a republic with an out of control federal court system, packed with liberal, activist judges who think the Constitution is their plaything, which has become the dominant branch of the government, with little or no recourse to fix things like the US 9th Circuit Court, the most loony, idiotic court in the land.  I am no fan of electing judges, but why the hell couldn't the Senate review and RENEW their appointments every 10 years or so?  That's what this Grouchy Historian would have built into the Constitution.  Judges are here to serve the people, not impose their own weird ideas on their fellow citizens through the power of the bench.

Federalist Papers Wisdom for the Week

This week we have what might be THE most prophetic papers written so far.  The Federalist and Anti-Federalist #10 seem to talk past each other, as one deals with taxes and the other with the dangers of a standing army, but both dealt with issues that were fresh in the minds of the Framers and very serious problems that needed addressing.  As always, it is vital to understand the context in which our Founders work and realize that they were very aware of current events, as it were, that needed to be dealt with.  Of course, being wise beyond their years, they anticipated problems that would prove eternal to our republic.

Federalist #10
This paper opens with addressing the need for a strong union and then dives directly into the meat of why the Constitutional Convention was meeting.  $$$$. Yup, money, money, honey.  Since the Founders were clearly part of the colonial 1%, a fact that likely bothered them not at all, they realized that getting commerce moving, paying off the colonies war debts, and expanding trade and opportunity were their numero uno priorities.  And of course, just like politicians today, they knew that commerce and taxation were interlinked and had to be addressed.  Here is an outstanding quote about property, income distribution, and wealth...hmmm, sound familiar??  The Founding Fathers were very aware of the monetary and debt crisis facing the new country (hmm sound familiar as well?) and knew that if the United STATES did not get their financial house in order, there would be hell to pay.  Good advice, don't you think?

"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government."

"The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets."

The italics and bold are mine, by the way...but WOW, were these guys good or what?...it's like they could almost see into the future to know that progressives like Barry O, the OWS morons, and the democRATS in Congress would come along to incite class warfare for their own ends.  And of course, for the historically illiterate among us (that would be most students of public schools and Ivy League schools) there has been income inequality THROUGHOUT HISTORY...oyyy, even Jesus said-"The poor you will always have among you." (Mark 14:7).  But hey, we don't need no stinkin' history...WE KNOW BETTER CUZ WE WANT IT...that seems to be the left's message these days.  The Founding Fathers worked very hard to ensure a level playing field, equal justice under the law, safeguarding against crony capitalism and above all LIBERTY!  They did not promise a chicken in every pot...they expected you to go out and earn your damn chicken.  Again, a Bible verse  "All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty" (Proverbs 14:23)

Anti-Federalist #10

So, the other major topic of the Founders was the issue of a standing army and the power of the new government to potentially make war on the states or coerce them into obedience.  They also feared the potential for a standing army to overthrow the fledgling government like many of the great states of history.  As usual, our Founders had a keen understanding of history and the precedent for Republics to become Dictatorships over time.  In addition, they also had recent experience, or a recent scare as it were.  At the end of the Revolutionary War, the officers of the Continental Army were in a foul mood.  They had not been paid in months or years and many of them were in great debt.  There were serious grumbling about marching to the Congress and demanding what they felt was their due from the politicians who had not bled and sacrificed as they had...hmm, that sounds familiar too.  Only the intervention of George Washington and the legendary story of him pulling out his reading glasses to read a letter to his officers (read Glenn Beck's book Being George Washington for the whole thing) stopped what likely would have been an American military coup. 

Therefore, the Founders were very leery of a standing army with a professional officer corps.

"We are informed, in the faithful pages of history, of such events frequently happening. — Two instances have been mentioned in a former paper. They are so remarkable, that they are worthy of the most careful attention of every lover of freedom. — They are taken from the history of the two most powerful nations that have ever existed in the world; and who are the most renowned, for the freedom they enjoyed, and the excellency of their constitutions: — I mean Rome and Britain.

"In the first, the liberties of the commonwealth was destroyed, and the constitution overturned, by an army, lead by Julius Cesar, who was appointed to the command, by the constitutional authority of that commonwealth. He changed it from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature."

What is interesting to note, to a Navy man as myself, is the Founders appeared to have no problem with a standing Navy.  Unwritten in these proceedings, but certainly in the mind of the Convention was that the new United States were already having pirate problems with the Barbary states...(hmm, Islamic piracy and terrorism in the 18th century, go figure) and the Framers knew a strong navy would be needed to protect America's new commerce.  But more on that later. ")

So, like much of the Constitution, the issue of a standing army was a compromise, and to be honest a pretty unsatisfactory one at that.  The whole militia thing never worked so well, and it would really take the War of 1812 to show that America needed a standing army, not only to fight Indians, but to form the backbone of an expanded volunteer army in case of a real war, which is basically how America fought its wars until the end of World War II.  Our outstanding professional volunteer military is really a Cold War construct of the last 40 years or so and one of the issues many hard core libertarians and nearly ALL progressive liberal pinko commies has is the size our military and our seemingly endless global military commitments.  But, again, more on that topic later.

FOR NOW, suffice it to say, our Founders understood the ETERNAL sinful nature of man, and how there would ALWAYS be have and have nots, and the only truly just way to govern was to give the have nots the best opportunity to become the haves, without taxing the crap out of the haves.  I am sure James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington would NOT have agreed with Barry O that the government should "spread the wealth around."  I think they would have said instead.."Give them Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Abe Lincoln and the Constitution

As we celebrate the birthday of one of America's greatest Presidents, it's instructive to pause and reflect on Lincoln's relationship with the Constitution, a subject I have been reading great deal about lately.

There are two distinctive schools of thought on Lincoln.  One says he was nearly Satan incarnate, a vindictive big government dictator who trampled on the Constitution and the liberty of the Southern Confederacy.  The other believes he was a measured statesman who did what was needed to preserve the Union.

It is beyond the scope of today's post to argue about slavery or succession, the typical controversies that Lincoln is judged on, so let's begin with what powers the Constitution actually gives the President, the Supreme Court, and Congress to maintain order and suppress rebellion.  Keep in mind the effect of Shay's Rebellion on the Founding Fathers and their ultimate desire to keep peace and order.

CONGRESS

Article I, Section 8:  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article I, Section 9:  The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Article I, Section 10:  No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

THE PRESIDENT

Article II, Section 2:  The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States                                         

THE SUPREME COURT

Article III, Section 3:  Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Given these fairly squishy and ill-defined powers, it is this Grouchy Historian's opinion that Lincoln's actions were quite reasonable, and I think it's important to keep in mind that historically speaking, the U.S. Civil War was not nearly as bitter and bloody as others in history.  This does not, of course, diminish the sacrifice of the nearly 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers that gave "the last full measure of devotion", but there were no major massacres of Southern Civilians, Sherman's March notwithstanding for those unrepentant Southerners, nor were there any "purges" of Confederate military or civilian leadership after the war.

Lincoln was a master strategist and politician who was probably the best commander-in-chief our country ever had.  He had a keen understanding of the political goal of his military actions and knew that making peace with southern Americans would be necessary after successfully waging war upon them.

His own words show some of Lincoln's impressive political acumen:

"...I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do proclaim, declare and make know, that...I am, and at all times shall be, prepared to give Executive aid and assistance to any such people, as soon as the military resistance to the United States shall have been suppressed in any such state, and the people thereof shall have sufficiently returned to the obedience to the Constitution... (Proclamation Concerning Reconstruction, July 8, 1863)

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."  (Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865.)

So, Happy Birthday President Lincoln and thank you for your service to our country.

Sociocultural Intelligence- What is it?

Sociocultural Intelligence.  Kerry Patton.  New York:  Contiuum, 2010.  ISBN 978-1-4411-2848-5.  Illustrations.  Notes & References.  Bibliography.  Index.  Pp. 204.  $35.95.

Sociocultural intelligence or human terrain analysis is a very hot topic today in the military and intelligence communities today.  Being the Grouchy Historian, I figured I'd better find a book or two and read up to see exactly what this new "SOCINT" was all about.  Kerry Patton, an instructor at Henley Putnam University, has written a primer on the subject that answered many of my questions, but did not quite meet my complete expectations.

Mr. Patton starts off well enough, and the case study he presents on Afghanistan was fascinating and very indicative of the challenges intelligence officers face when coming to grips with a completely alien society in a faraway land, where traditional forms of governance, economics, and society do not conform to Western concepts.  However, Mr. Patton doesn't seem to be able to decide if he is writing a narrative history, how to manual, or lessons learned manual and it is occasionally hard to follow the flow of the book.

Where the book did well was explaining the components of SOCINT and how it contrasted and complimented other traditional forms of intelligence in the new security environment dominated by counter terrorism and counter-insurgency.  This is what I was really looking for--sort of a checklist of SOCINT and what it was, and I didn't really get it from this book.

The other place the book shined was the case study.  I would have really preferred that the case study was greatly expanded to offer some actual lessons learned from Afghanistan, where Mr. Patton has obviously spent a great deal of time.  I am a big fan of case studies and I felt this volume missed a tremendous opportunity to use "been there, done that" examples to show the potential for SOCINT in a real world setting, including both the good and bad efforts by Coalition Forces, and even a comparison of SOCINT efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The one place the book really confused me and let me down was the extended discussion on ethics and SOCINT.  By its very nature, intelligence gathering may be considered a hostile act, so worrying about the ethics of interviewing and talking to tribal leaders in a more concerted, logical manner seems like a stretch.  That could just be my own inexperience, but I think this could have been a short paragraph or two instead of an extended chapter.

Mr. Patton has hopefully set the stage for more volumes to follow on this topic as more officers and civilian participants begin to document the history of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years.  SOCINT is here to stay, and how well the U.S. military and intelligence communities master this difficult art of not only knowing your opponent, but where your opponent lives and works, may spell the difference in conducting successful military operations in the 21st century.  This book is recommended, but with reservations.

For additional information on this topic, I recommend: 
Operational Culture for the Warfighter: Principles and Applications

This textbook is a collaboration between the United States Marine Corps Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning and the Marine Corps University. Originally published in May 2009 in limited numbers this book studies the role of cultural awareness in securing operational success in the battlespace. This book is designed to help link concepts of culture to the realities of planning and and executing military operations around the world.