Posted on 02/25/2012 3:35:29 PM PST by ProgressingAmerica
"If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." - Woodrow Wilson
There is so much in that little line. The obvious question is regarding the preface - what's in the preface of the Declaration of Independence that scared Wilson so much? In short, fundamental truths. Timeless, tested, proven to work fundamentals. Our reliance on our creator, and not upon government, for our rights.
In 1911, Woodrow Wilson gave his now infamous speech regarding the Declaration to - of all places, I love this - the Jefferson Club. "An Address to the Jefferson Club of Los Angeles" is the full title of this speech. What's really telling about how much disdain he had for the Founders is the line that precedes the one I opened this up with: (You can read the majority of this speech here)
Now, the business of every true Jeffersonian is to translate the terms of those abstract portions of the Declaration of Independence into the language and the problems of his own day. If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface.
See what I mean? Just with one single sentence, we get a much fuller view of Wilson's contempt for the Founders. Especially when he says 'translate the terms of those abstract portions of the Declaration'. But what's so abstract that needs translation? The natural law portions. Something that progressives have always been consistent about,(and I have a full blog devoted to proving this, in their own words) is the need for bigger and bigger government. But how can you grow government if the foundation is built on the rejection of tyranny? You don't repeat the preface. Just skip it.
And it's not like Wilson only said this once. September 1907, in "The Author and Signers of the Declaration", Wilson wrote the following:
So far as the Declaration of Independence was a theoretical document, that is its theory. Do we still hold it? Does the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence still live in our principles of action, in the things we do, in the purposes we applaud, in the measures we approve? It is not a question of piety. We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence; we are as free as they were to make and unmake governments. We are not here to worship men or a document. But neither are we here to indulge in a mere rhetorical and uncritical eulogy. Every Fourth of July should be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness. That and that alone is the obligation the Declaration lays upon us.
He might as well have said his name was Philip Dru when he wrote this.(though, the book wouldn't have been released at that time) Notice how he throws out that fallacy about worshipping men or a document? That's the stereotypical progressive arrogance, and beyond that - that's ridicule. That might as well have come out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, even though that wasn't written yet either.(Page 128, rule # 5)
So even though the constitution is the law of the land, they don't have to uphold it. And they don't. When progressives get into office, the ends justifies the means, anything goes, and they're free to "Fundamentally Transform The United States of America". Wilson even says so himself - the Declaration only holds them up to one single obligation. All the rest of that stuff about tyranny? Throw it out the window, it's just some dusty old document anyways, it's just a living document anyways. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
Woodrow Wilson also directly rejected the rule-of-law theory, you can read about it here.
Quite true.
However, I’d also like to point out that there is little in Wilson’s actual words as quoted in the article to object to.
Certainly Jefferson would have agreed with them. I’ve just finished an excellent book on the Declaration, and it shows very clearly that the Founders didn’t think of themselves as demigods setting up a permanent form of government for all time. They were well aware that changing circumstances would require modifications to the Constitution, though I’m pretty sure they expected the principles outlined in that darn preamble to the Declaration to be valid forever. (However imperfect they were at implementing those principles themselves.)
In fact, that’s why they included provision for amending the Constitution as needed. Personally, I think an amendment making the Constitution less difficult to amend is needed. The present situation, where truly substantive issues haven’t been settled by an amendment since the 50s or 60s, depending on how you define “substantive,” IMO does not serve us well.
Changes WILL be made, and if they can’t be made constitutionally, it encourages end runs around the Constitution. I’m perfectly well aware this isn’t a popular POV, and has zero chance of being implemented, but I think it would be a good thing if it were. I also think it is perfectly in alignment with the spirit in which the Founders actually worked.
“Woody and TR still thought they had to override or change the Constitution, since they assumed it meant what it said.”
They found a way, however.
The 17th Amendment was the cornerstone to the Progressive agenda. With it, they took away the primary means of limiting the growth of the federal government, the individual states. Before the 17th Amendment senators were selected by state legislatures to represent the interests of the state — which included maintaining control of state powers.
Once “the people” elected Senators, they became nothing but additional House members representing the whims and fancies of the people — who could always be persuaded to concede to the federal government those powers that were formerly theirs (and the states’).
If you ever want to return to the constitutional principle of limited government then the 17th Amendment must be repealed.
Every bit of mischief (plus a great deal more to come) with modern American government spawns from that line, like an epidemic.
And he was a racist who issued an executive order preventing blacks from getting jobs with the federal government. This created the original slums in DC.
The 17th Amendment was the cornerstone to the Progressive agenda.
The 16th, 17th, & 18th Amendments were the Progressive Trifecta.
Seems something we read in high school indicated Progressives believed this representative republic experiment, a nation of laws with men limited by a Constitution would end shortly after the loss of recreational alcohol consumption. And it nearly did. Execept Progressives never counted on the resourcefullness of a 21st Amendment repealing their 18th. Too bad the 21st only repealed the 18th Amendment.
Cheers,
OLA
Problem: I’ve lived in half a dozen states, and in each of them the state legislature was even more corrupt and subservient to special interests than is Congress.
IMO returning election of senators to the states would not help and might very well make things worse.
Hillary is the bottom. How low we go is determined by how long she's able to pull strings.
It's that crude.
Wilson believed in the British system and wanted to be a prime minister. Nixon was a big admirer of Wilson; maybe that explains why both were pitiful failures.
How well did Princeton Wilson “Protect, and Defend The Constitution?”
BTW, why DO we elect so many Ivy-League Presidents?
Are we doomed to learn nothing from our past mistakes?
The 16th, 17th, & 18th Amendments were the Progressive Trifecta.
Seems something we read in high school indicated Progressives believed this representative republic experiment, a nation of laws with men limited by a Constitution would end shortly after the loss of recreational alcohol consumption. And it nearly did. Execept Progressives never counted on the resourcefullness of a 21st Amendment repealing their 18th. Too bad the 21st only repealed the 18th Amendment.
The 14th is the turning point. It created, out of whole cloth, an imaginary government devoid of rights, and under which all interpretations of all law (including Amendments) were to be made from the principle of total government superiority, and zero citizen sovereignty - and absolute reversal of the original Constitution.
Greetings Talisker:
Concur with the unintended “role reversal” consequences of 14th Amendment as practiced. And still uncomfortable with the process for how the 14th Amendment came to be. But the 14th as a “Progressive” agenda initiative is not in my frame of reference. Care to expand upon that?
Rick Santorum’s expressed commitment to appoint SCOTUS justices in the model of Clarence Thomas gives me hope. The left absolutely hates Clarence Thomas especially for his stance on the 9th Amendment; which could undo the Statist’s zero citizen sovereignty assult upon our Constitution.
Cheers,
OLA
With the 17th Amendment the relevance of state legislatures was greatly diminished thereby allowing for apathy to leave a vacuum that drew in small minded locals to breed corruption.
Cause and effect. Before the 17th voters were much more engaged in state legislatures; and after not so much.
The rationale for the 17th was borne out of some state legislature gridlocks leaving Senatorial positions vacant. In my book that is a good thing. If voters could not decide their state politics, then the state sitting it out in Congress reflected the indecision. Fine by me.
In states with a senate that represented rural areas on par with urban, these senate bodies had a great sway over appointment of US Senators. Whereas today it is the large liberal union controlled urban voter populations that elect US Senators.
The 16th and 17th both should have been repealed along with the 18th but the impact of the 16th and 17th was not felt until its creep factor (slow boil frog process) became so pervasive that people have woken up to what these things have done to society.
The 16th and 17th were banker creations and the 18th served as a red herring to divert voter angst to a social issue. Meanwhile the Federal Reserve Act was passed and signed into law by Wilson to complete the foundation for supporting a centralization of federal power with a new unholy alliance with central bankers.
All of these things were done with a sales pitch of more democracy and more fairness when in reality they were done to consolidate political and financial power in the federal government, just as Obamacare is not about providing healthcare to the uninsured but about controlling access and inserting a new tax scheme into the life of every American. Just as Social Security was constitutionally upheld as a tax under the 16th, so will Obamacare be so characterized. And state legislatures including their conservative rural voices will have no effect in the US Senate to stop the socialism. And socialism is ultimately about focusing the power and wealth into the hands of a few while giving the public an illusion of an egalitarian society.
Chewbarkah, you were correct, I didn't know about Jefferson's 19 year proposal. I'm glad you mentioned it, and I went looking for it. What I found was this: this. There appears to be a larger context with this letter to Madison, which involves a land question. It's not simply about dissolving all government after 19 years. There are a lot of laws which get changed and thrown out on a generational basis, and I think that's a good thing. But here's the difference. Considering Jefferson's view of some firmly set truths revolving around our natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we don't throw out the entire concept of liberty after a mere 19 years. That's what Wilson did want.
To Sherman:
You made the following comment:
"However, I’d also like to point out that there is little in Wilson’s actual words as quoted in the article to object to. Certainly Jefferson would have agreed with them. I’ve just finished an excellent book on the Declaration, and it shows very clearly that the Founders didn’t think of themselves as demigods setting up a permanent form of government for all time. They were well aware that changing circumstances would require modifications to the Constitution, though I’m pretty sure they expected the principles outlined in that darn preamble to the Declaration to be valid forever. (However imperfect they were at implementing those principles themselves.)"
What I bolded is the key. The preamble is exactly what Wilson and his ilk were objecting to, and Jefferson would very much have had a problem with this, because as you said(and I agree) the Founders looked at these to be fundamental truths. The progressives don't look at these as fundamental truths, and want to progress past these inconveniences. This can't go both ways. For people who see value in the preamble, then Wilson's words are highly offensive.
As long as we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights, then the progressives cannot rule over us.(but they will keep trying) And while Jefferson had his 19 year proposal, I'm fairly confident he did not mean that after 19 years, liberty ends and let's resume tyranny. Look, maybe I'm wrong, Chewbarka has already established that I don't have all the answers, to which I readily admit.
I share everyone’s opposition to the Progressive Agenda. Since we should always found our case on solid ground, follow the link to Wilson’s Jefferson Club speech. It is clear that his rhetorical intent is to say in effect “let’s keep Jefferson’s high-minded preamble, and create a new list of abuses, injustices, etc., for our time, in the light thereof.” Thus, Wilson is in precise agreement with your emboldened text. Of course he then proposes his twisted version of problems and solutions, incorporating, the Progressive economic critique of the Constitution (that wealthy “haves” created an order to butter their bread and keep the little man down), its social agenda, and its pantheon of pseudo-solutions. His purpose in this speech is not to deny Jefferson’s preamble, but to hijack and harness it, like the rest of us, to the Progressive plough. He even arrogates Mr. Jefferson’s posthumous endorsement of the crime.
I share your contempt for the Progressive Agenda. Since we should always found our case on solid ground, follow the link to Wilson’s Jefferson Club speech. It is clear that his rhetorical intent is to say in effect “let’s keep Jefferson’s high-minded preamble, and create a new list of abuses, injustices, etc., for our time, in the light thereof.” Thus, Wilson is in precise agreement with your emboldened text. Of course he then proposes his twisted version of problems and solutions, incorporating, the Progressive economic critique of the Constitution (that wealthy “haves” created an order to butter their bread and keep the little man down), its social agenda, and its pantheon of pseudo-solutions. His purpose in this speech is not to deny Jefferson’s preamble, but to hijack and harness it to the Progressive plough. He even arrogates Mr. Jefferson’s posthumous endorsement of the crime.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.