GUNNING 4 CONGRESS

Paul
Enjoyed this article, with which I largely concur! I think it is important, however, to never forget or discount Colonial history and the “nature” of Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration.

By 1787 when the victorious 13 colonies had “savored” half-a-dozen years or so of their victory, they were in the process of “squandering” what they claimed they had sought!
Before getting to your article, here is my perspective on what was Jefferson’s Declaration and what it was subsequently interpreted to politically demand.

Jefferson’s unprecedented and profound Declaration of 1776 is actually two documents. The first, beginning with the words, “When in the course of human events,” ending with, “to alter their former systems of government,” is a moral document. The entirety of the second and much “larger” document, is a political one.

The first document presents a formal statement of “rights,” with the fundamental right to one’s own life as their foundation. Further, the first is an expression of the “founder’s” formal educations – embodying the learning of “classical” liberal ideals discovered during what is termed The Enlightenment, together with their experience of living on the edge of a vast, unexplored, and unforgiving wilderness.

The second document represents an eloquent listing of grievances against the King and Crown – i.e., what history demonstrates always arises when government power is not restrained by adherence to the moral-political ideals expressed in the first document. Together, they comprise Jefferson’s entire Document!

Sadly, individuals have come to mistakenly believe America’s “Revolution” was its “War for Independence.” I argue that this war was but a “typical” one, not the actual “revolution.”
This war was begun earlier, on April 19, 1775 (my birthday!), featuring the usual chaos and destruction that characterizes all wars. Replete with brutality, carnage, and injustice, it pitted “Redcoat” against a rag-tag gaggle of farmers, tradesmen, and merchants – sprinkled with a larger sampling of “rebels.” Further, it encompassed a population composed of ~1/3 Rebel, against another ~1/3 Tory (whose allegiance remained with En), with the remaining ~1/3 trying to escape/”hide,” wishing only to be left alone!

After Ben Franklin had garnered utterly essential French support, the war would end in 1781 at Yorktown, with the military of the 13 colonies triumphant over Cornwallis and England’s King/Crown. The formal treaty acknowledging such would then be signed in 1783. By 1787, however, escape from the clutches of England had led to an unsustainable Colonial state-of-affairs. A number of the colonies desired to withdraw from the rest. Another number wanted to return to “governance” under the King and Crown. Still others had various solutions to their inability/unwillingness to peacefully trade, prosper, and thrive. Their dilemma, however, was that they lived “together” on what remained the edge of a vast, unexplored, and hostile wilderness, with rulers of the “old” world still desirous of controlling the resources of the colonist’s “new” one!

So, Washington (George) headed an effort to resolve said differences, The effort would become termed a “Constitutional Convention,” held in Philadelphia, in 1787. What the delegates created was, in effect, a “Robert’s Rules of Order” for governance. Significant and unprecedented in its political procedural devices, it made it cumbersome to wield government power. It also failed to heed the moral ideals of its “founding” document, the first passages of Jefferson’s Declaration.

It was an unprecedented attempt at self-governance via a Constitutional Republic, with Democratic institutions! However, it was a “flawed” creation. I often note that the word “rights” appears nowhere in the body of the Constitution, save in its “afterthought” – i.e., in its Bill of Rights. One can only shudder at what would have likely transpired had the adoption of the Constitution by the States occurred without those first 10 Amendments being promised to become a part of it!

In summary, the Constitution failed to adhere to the moral ideals embodied in Jefferson’s Declaration of July 4, 1776, though its first 10 Amendments would suggest otherwise.

As I later discovered, the primary motivation of the Constitutional Convention – and it became the unstated “theme” of the 56 delegates selected to attend, was a simple one. Cede as little power as possible to this envisioned “new” governing authority, while retaining as much “sovereignty” as currently existed in each Colony.

I argue that they ended up paying lip service to the first paragraphs of Jefferson’s Declaration. Hell, much of their government’s activities in their respective “states” were already in violation of the moral ideals contained in the first paragraphs of Jefferson’s Declaration!

What follows will be a portion of my upcoming book.

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, this arrogant contemporary

(Me!) imagines himself present in addition to the fifty-six representatives invited from the colonies. This imagined fifty-seventh Representative has been recognized by the Chair to address the collection of delegates. Delegates who perhaps represent the greatest gathering of enlightened political thinkers of the time. He would argue, at any time, in history.

He has been inspired by their intelligence, moved by their intellect, and impressed – as they resolve issue upon issue impeding their progress toward their goal, by their resolute determination.

As he is recognized and rises to speak, his manner is somber and reserved – unusual for such an arrogance.

“Gentlemen (There were no women present. Additionally, it would be quite a while before the ideals expressed in Jefferson’s profound Declaration would politically include women, black Africans, and Native Americans): The political institutions you envision, and have remarkably fashioned, do not have the moral foundation to secure the ideals stated in Mr. Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration.
Specifically, one cannot argue on behalf of a human being’s political right to their own life, creating political institutions designed, debated, and adopted to then secure and protect same, while at the same time accepting of a morality that a human being has a universal greater moral obligation. One that demands they live their life in service to some other purpose not of their freely exercised choice. An obligation to either other human beings, or an imagined greater entity or abstraction.
Those for whom you wish to politically-secure such a right, and from whom its recognition and respect must be understood and defended, will disagree with it, while they maintain that each among us has a “higher” moral duty to fulfill, one that makes the “right” to one’s own life, subordinate.
This tirelessly repeated moral prescription has destroyed whatever expression of an individual’s right to their own life (individual rights!) may have been temporarily recognized in past societies, without exception. In the absence of a proper moral defense of them, this body’s unprecedented attempt at their political consecration shall become doomed as well.” – David Walden, August 12, 2005.

Yes, Paul, what has become of what is termed “the American Experiment,” is a tragedy. Washington’s (George) initial leadership and the circumstances of America’s beginnings led to initial practical success (~100 years). As I argue above, however, it was doomed to failure. Without “the West” and the lure of its expansion, it would have become what it has, likely much sooner!

What might now be the “remedy?” The moral ideal of altruism, leading to its being made “compulsory” through politics, must be challenged. A daunting educational challenge!

My first political step would be your most obvious one. Term limits. However, the degradation of our political institutions occurred in stages. A concurrent step with my first one would be to reverse the 17th Amendment. One of the wonderful consequences of our 1787 Constitution is the inherent difficulty and cumbersome means of “getting anything done” at the federal level! The founders understood that to wield power one had to first consolidate it. Retaining power in the States to appoint their Senatorial “representatives” enabled each State to retain a great deal of potential congressional power. However, so-called “States-rights” is not a valid moral concept – i.e., only individuals have rights, but it is an entirely valid political concept.

My next step would be the “education” of anyone earning a High School diploma. An education that in order to graduate, one had to demonstrate they understood what the concept of “Individual Rights” were and were not! Why?

I cannot adequately answer that in this brief reply, Paul, but I cited it above in my brief descriptions of my interpretation of Jefferson’s Declaration. One cannot claim as a “right,” that which mandates another to provide it! Imposing such an obligation on some for the alleged benefit of others, becomes the very definition of “slavery!”
I