Posted on 09/18/2005 9:30:23 PM PDT by betty boop
The ME in the credit for the letter refers to “Memorial Edition” as Bergh’s effort was more or less timed to correspond with the centennial of the Louisiana Purchase.
TO JAMES MADISON. MONTICELLO, August 30, 1823.
DEAR SIR,-I received the enclosed letters from the President, with a request, that after perusal I would forward them to you, for perusal by yourself also, and to be returned then to him. You have doubtless seen Timothy Pickering's Fourth of July observations on the Declaration of Independence.
If his principles and prejudices, personal and political, gave us no reason to doubt whether he had truly quoted the information he alleges to have received from Mr. Adams, I should then say, that in some of the particulars, Mr. Adams' memory has led him into unquestionable error. At the age of eighty-eight, and forty-seven years after the transactions of Independence, this is not wonderful. Nor should I, at the age of eighty, on the small advantage of that difference only, venture to oppose my memory to his, were it not supported by written notes, taken by myself at the [15-461] moment and on the spot.
He says, "the committee of five, to wit, Dr. Franklin, Sherman, Livingston, and ourselves, met, discussed the subject, and then appointed him and myself to make the draught; that we, as a sub-committee, met, and after the urgencies of each on the other, I consented to undertake the task; that the draught being made, we, the sub-committee, met, and conned the paper over, and he does not remember that he made or suggested a single alteration."
Now these details are quite incorrect. The committee of five met; no such thing as a sub-committee was proposed, but they unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee, I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams, requesting their corrections, because they were the two members of whose judgments and amendments I wished most to have the benefit, before presenting it to the committee; and you have seen the original paper now in my hands, with the corrections of Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams interlined in their own handwritings. Their alterations were two or three only, and merely verbal.
I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered, to Congress.
This personal communication and consultation with Mr. Adams, he has misremembered into the actings of a sub-committee. Pickering's observations, and Mr. Adams' in addition, “that it contained no new ideas, that it is a commonplace compilation, its sentiments hackneyed in Congress for two years before, and its essence contained in Otis' pamphlet," may all be true. Of that I am not to be the judge. Richard Henry Lee charged it as copied from Locke's treatise on government. Otis' pamphlet I never saw, and whether I had gathered my ideas from reading or reflection I do not know. I know only that I turned to neither book nor pamphlet while writing it. I did not consider it as any part of my charge to invent new ideas altogether, and to offer no sentiment which had ever been expressed before.
Had Mr. Adams been so restrained, Congress would have lost the benefit of his bold and impressive advocations of the rights of Revolution. For no man's confident and fervid addresses, more than Mr. Adams', encouraged and supported us through the difficulties surrounding us, which, like the ceaseless action of gravity, weighed on us by night and by day. Yet, on the same ground, we may ask what of these elevated thoughts was new, or can be affirmed never before to have entered the conceptions of man? Whether, also, the sentiments of Independence, and the reasons for declaring it, which make so great a portion of the instrument, had been hackneyed in Congress for two years before the 4th of July, '76, or this dictum also of Mr. Adams be another slip of memory, let history say. This, however, I will say for Mr. Adams, that he supported the Declaration with zeal and ability, fighting fearlessly for every word of it.
As to myself, I thought it a duty to be, on that occasion, a passive auditor of the opinions of others, more impartial judges than I could be, of its merits or demerits. During the debate I was sitting by Doctor Franklin, and he observed that I was writhing a little under the acrimonious criticisms on some of its parts; and it was on that occasion, that by way of comfort, he told me the story of John Thompson, the hatter, and his new sign.
Timothy thinks the instrument the better for having a fourth of it expunged. He would have thought it still better, had the other three-fourths gone out also, all but the single sentiment (the only one he approves), which recommends friendship to his dear England, whenever she is willing to be at peace with us. His insinuations are, that although “the high tone of the instrument was in unison with the warm feelings of the times, this sentiment of habitual friendship to England should never be forgotten, and that the duties it enjoins should especially be borne in mind on every celebration of this anniversary.” In other words that the Declaration, as being a libel on the government of England, composed in times of passion, should now be buried in utter oblivion, to spare the feelings of our English friends and Angloman fellow citizens.
But it is not to wound them that we wish to keep it in mind; but to cherish the principles of the instrument in the bosoms of our own citizens: and it is a heavenly comfort to see that these principles are yet so strongly felt, as to render a circumstance so trifling as this little lapse of memory of Mr. Adams, worthy of being solemnly announced and supported at an anniversary assemblage of the nation on its birthday.
In opposition, however, to Mr. Pickering, I pray God that these principles may be eternal, and close the prayer with my affectionate wishes for yourself of long life, health and happiness.
. . . . . Jefferson, letter to James Madison, August 30, 1823, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh Editor, ME, vol. 15 - pg 461
Jefferson's reference to Adams' memory lapse as "not wonderful" simply meant to confer an absence of any surprise that someone of Adams' advanced age might suffer such a lapse.
And finally found a sympathetic federal judge who ruled the language “unconstitutional.” Of course, the decision will be appealed, no news there. My questions go to the reason of Newdow’s animosity, and to the question of how a federal judge had reached this conclusion.
The way I analyze the problem: The first inalienable right of the Bill of Rights is freedom of religion, otherwise known as freedom of conscience. There are two clauses that refer to this right. The first — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” — clearly restrains federal power vis-à-vis the states in matters of religion/conscience. At the time of the Founding, several states had “established” (i.e., “official”) churches of their own, and were mighty jealous to preserve them. The second — “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” — extends to the personal sphere: the federal government may not prohibit religious practice or the right of conscience more generally, with respect to the human person. Indeed, this is the government’s most basic pledge to free men — to get “out of their face” when it comes to matters spiritual.
The problem I’m having with the Newdow case is I don’t see how the “under God” language is a constitutional issue. Because (1) that language was authorized by due, legitimate enactment of Congress. Now Congress is — under the constitutional framework — supposed to be the closest governmental body to the People there is — and of the three equal yet separate and balanced powers, the one most directly responsible/accountable to them.
What I want to know is: Where is the interest of the “sovereign states” in the Newdow matter? Where the interest of (2) the human person? Does Newdow really imagine that ideas of God contribute to the delinquency of minors? Or somehow subvert the civil peace? If that is the case, by such criteria of judgment as he employs, pornography gets an easier ride in contemporary culture than religion does.
But the real question is: Can a supposedly “sane” society justify such things?
This problem became topical for me with the recent observation of a friend, who noted that Christianity is in severe decline in contemporary society, and that contemporary society is not the least bit affected by this trend.
I have strong doubts about both statements. I wonder what you think.
Thanks so very much for your informative and thought-provocative essay/post, and for the great quotes!
Was there more or less crime before "under God" was added to the pledge?
For that matter, did crime go down when "In God We Trust" was added to coinage?
I question this statement that "By claiming US citizenship, we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government..."
Most of us here never, in fact, claimed US citizenship. Instead we achieved this citizenship by simply by being born within the geographical borders of the United States or in its acknowledged possessions overseas, i.e. military bases,etc.
This being the case does the phrase, "...we VOLUNTARILY place ourselves under the jurisdiction of the federal government" still hold true?
This reminds me of little tit-for-tat that took place in the 1870s British Raj. The British Commander in charge of this particular district learned that the rite of suttee was going to be performed in a near by village.
The British officer went to the village and reminded the village chief that suttee was illegal under the Raj. To which the chief haughtily replied the suttee would take place anyway, explaining: "It is the custom of my people."
To which the British officer replied: "And it is the custom of my people to hang murderers. And if you follow the custom of you people, then I shall follow the custom of mine."
The suttee did not take place.
====================================== Suttee: the act of a Hindu widow being burned alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband
traviskicks, I’m wondering whether you might have any insight into why Michael Newdow would so object to the “under God” language of the Pledge of Allegiance that he would make a personal crusade out of legally extirpating it, which arguably he has done.
---
IMO, this falls under a very sticky category. It is sticky because the root problems that are causing the problem are often not addressed, which, unfortunately, validates them. The root of the problem is socialism, with has spawned this question of whether 'under God' should be said in public school.
It has spawned the problem because, under the Constitution, Newdow and the parents he is representing have a right to raise their children a certain way and should be allowed to raise their children that way, free of government coercion. His point, that he is forced to pay tax money to an institution that flagrantly defies his values, is, in a way, valid. After all, it was Thomas Jefferson who said:
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
But on the other side, we have the vast majority of Americans who don't have a problem with 'Under God' and don't mind it being in public schools. Yet, some of these parents have problems with evolution being taught in school and sex/ed etc.. etc.. Their rights are being violated in the same way as Newdow's - opinions they abhor are being taught to their own children with their own tax money. It is repulsive.
To have an opinion one way or the other on any one of these issues is besides the point and counterproductive as it misses the bigger picture: socialism of public schools. Having government controlling public schools results in all these problems. If charter schools/school choice existed (or government was completely removed from education), then no one could complain about the happenings in the school their kids attend because no one is forced to send their kids to any particular school.
But our public schools are not run by the parents, they are run by the government: local, state, and federal, and so they are not free from political control. Thus, this problem exists. Both Newdow and other parents who disagree with any aspect of the public education forced on their kids should join forces to destroy educational socialism. Yet, because of differing ideology, an alliance of this nature would surely make these groups uneasy.
FYI, more on Charter schools:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/charterschoolsexplained.htm
This pattern exists elsewhere. The same parallel is found in the gay marriage debate. Why is there a debate over whether gays can marry? Why can't they just 'do it' at a Church that recognizes it? And why do they even need a Church? Why can't they just recognize it themselves. But they cannot because government has given itself the power to define marriage. Churches, religious institutions, etc... and whomever wants should be able to define marriage, without coercion from government and the benefits (tax etc..) that come with marriage are problems of over taxation and socialism.
There are a variety of other examples of this sort of thing I could give, for example, immigrants putting 'strain' on 'social services' is not a problem of immigration, but a problem of socialism. The argument that helmets should be required by law, because other people end up paying for that person's injury, is a problem of socialism.
Socialism, in any form, spawns all of these problems, which cause rancor, chaos, anger, and instability in society. It must be eliminated in the United States.
This Supreme Court will no doubt face a review of that decision in the 9th and (IMHO) a related decision made in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Kaufman v. McCaughtry
In that case, the court held that atheism is a religion. This puts an entirely new spin on a lot of things.
Concerning Newdow, the removing of the “under God” is to establish atheism as a state religion under the First Amendment. Likewise, the inability to speak of God – pray to God – refer to God – in a publicly funded environment is to establish atheism as a state religion. This will no doubt reach to the Intelligent Design litigation as well.
From the opinion:
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by … God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion, Fleishfresser v. Dirs. Of Sch Dist. (7th Cir. 1994); see also Welsh v.United States … (1970); United States v. Seeger … (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos…. (7th,cir 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”) Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky. … (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of the Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”
Bookmarked for later response.
~ joanie
This problem became topical for me with the recent observation of a friend, who noted that Christianity is in severe decline in contemporary society, and that contemporary society is not the least bit affected by this trend.
---
As government retreats, religion generally expands. Is it any coincidence that the religious revival of the 80s and 90s parallels the rising of conservatism?
Religion often performs many functions that governemnt often tyrnanically assumes, thus governments have historically been very wary of religion because religion can foster independent thought and form strong political movements. This is why most communist countries banned all religions and other tyrants (middle eastern) make sure they control religion or merge the two together (Iran).
So, as long as we keep expanding freedom, I think we have nothing to worry about regarding Christianity expanding.
One last thought, is that if government begins to exerte control over relgion, then religion and governemnt will become corrupted. It has been a dissapointment for me to see President Bush's 'faith based' inititatives lauded here on FR.
I don't want government controlling religion, I'd rather God control religion. Since government is a necessary evil, as James Madison said, "if men were angels there would be no need for government" (paraphrasing from Federalsit papers), then it maks no sense to put this necessary evil in charge of religion.
Of course, it is 'unfair' that faith based groups can't recieve public funds, but, again, this is a problem, not of discrimination, but of socialism. No groups should receive public funds for anything. Then the argument is moot.
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
- Thomas Paine
"A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion."
- Justice Roy Black
The original socialist idea was to require people chant The Pledge to build up the Sense Of Union (as opposed to the Confederacy). In the 1950s, adding "under God" was added to separate Christian Socialism from Communist Socialism.
Where has government retreated? The growth of power and size of the government has coincided with growth in conservatism and religious revivalism. W has increased government spending, control, power, influence, etc., more than anyone since Wilson.
Good point. These charts will turn your stomach:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1400545/posts?page=59#55
But it does seem like the Conservative movement is growing in this country, even if W is exapnding socialism at the moment. School choice, personal retirement accounts, demise of unions, flat/fair tax proposals, all of these ideas are considered seriously and hopefully will be enacted in the next 10 years. Media turnover has been especially helpeful.
I think the statement, "as government retreats, religion and morality exapnd", is generally true, but on a fundemental level. It is hard to measure such an abstract thing.
Interesting question. Shuffling a couple of words here, could it be said that contemporary Christianity is in severe decline but the work of the true church moves forward unabated and un-noticed?
It's possible that more and more people are leaving the form to merge with the substance. If so, then the quality of the mores of society at large would have to show a pronounced gain over the years, which actually may be the case if examined closely enough.
I think that is the case. The 'negative' gets the press and attracts our attraction, continually obscuring the real world.
But the real world does manage to shine through once in a while. For example, how many people in the country were aware of the good things that were happening during and after Katrina, as opposed to the bad things that were happening?
Quality and quantity were on the side of the good, I'm sure. And though I don't have the vision to make a comparison between how the world and society at large responded to such catastrophes throughout history, intuitively I think the activity of today's generation would prove that substance is winning over form.
So regardless of those folks who attempt to alter our political system -- and succeed, or the actions of those folks who bend the system to popularize and support their proclivities and perpetrations, it should have no effect on our personal journeys, for government is not the teacher of ethics, morals, or righteousness, but the protector of the concensus.
That does not mean that we should just lay back and allow the perps to mangle the system. On the contrary, it should spur us on to greater efforts in preserving and refining how we are governed and represented.
Those we fight against are those that want to RE-define how we are governed and represented, and that takes us back to the source of the problem -- pro-active judges who are re-defining and creating law.
There will always be the flag-burners and pledge-slayers amongst us.
Indeed. I believe that it was Goethe who said
The God to whom a man proves devoutSome people do not worship God; some people “worship themselves,” believing that they alone are “the captains of their souls, the masters of their fates.” They “give law” unto themselves, and resent the idea that there is a God to whom they owe any duty. Clearly, this is a religious view, specifically the religious view of the atheist. It seems to me the First Amendment protects this view just as assuredly as it protects the views of theism.
That is his own soul, turned inside out.
In short, the First Amendment says that what a man does with his own spirituality is none of the federal government’s business. Whether he opens his soul to God, or shuts it down to Him and “Katy bar the door!” is a matter of private conscience. (In thinking of some of my friends here at FR who shall be nameless, I sometimes conjure up an fanciful image of them slamming shut the “door of the soul,” activating seven deadbolts and innumerable other types of locks, then piling up all the household moveables against an already “hermetically sealed” door, just to make sure no “thief” can break in, in the dead of night… offering grace and light….)
I’m so sorry to have been so scarce lately. I am just buried in work lately. Sigh…. Will try to catch up asap.
Thanks so very much for your informative essay on SCOTUS’ current view of atheism as a form of religious expression, and its view that the Establishment Clause "mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
Excellent analysis of the important distinctions in play here, YHAOS. Thank you!
Hello Doc! Crime is hardly the only index of social disorder, or even the most important one. Of much greater concern to me as an indicator of social disorder is the virtual destruction of rational discourse in public life. Case in point: the Cindy Sheehan affair. The woman is a certifiable nut job; yet the MSM slavishly follow her around and report her every word as if she were Moses come down from the Mount with the Two Tablets. Of course, they love her because she is "an embarrassment to the president." And of course as far as these lunatics are concerned, it's perfectly okay to "embarrass" the commander-in-chief in time of war....
And then there were Bill Clinton's performances on this past Sunday's talk shows (i.e., Russert's and Stephanopoulos'). Absolutely every word out of his mouth "shaved the truth" by obscuring or misrepresenting relevant evidence (e.g., his own performance in office as compared with that of his successor) and engaging in every manner of logical fallacy and "sleight-of-hand spin."
Clinton is a world-class sophist, and uses all the sophistical tricks. How many people do you think there are out there who can spot them? Language is increasingly corrupted when it comes out of the mouths of -- and is heard and interpreted by -- disordered people. As Heraclitus put it,
Eyes and ears are bad witnessesHow many people do you suppose there are these days who recognize the former president as the megalomaniacal narcissist he truly is -- and thus not someone fit to hold high public office or be trusted with power over other men? He swore an oath of office, to uphold, preserve, and defend the Constitution. Do you think he ever kept faith with that oath? I wonder how many people are still around who even care about a question like that.
For men whose souls are barbarous.
Personal disorder per se is not a prosecutable crime -- even though it undermines the public order itself, and destroys the social consensus that a republican democracy absolutely requires in order to function.
And you yourself "get" the import of "the medicalization of sin." There is no evil in the world, only treatable health problems. So the "person in ill health" cannot commit evil acts. Thus he is free to engage in any behavior he likes; and when he "hits the wall" as the inevitable consequence of his behavior, we just pass the tab along to society at large; i.e., to the taxpayer. So "sin" is not just "medicalized"; it is socialized.
This is what Eliot meant by progressivist/utopian dreams "of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good."
And yet there can be no liberty without personal responsibility. They are the two sides of the same coin.
Of course, would-be tyrants have no stake in the personal liberty of other people, because it makes their job difficult if not impossible. It should come as no surprise that Marx was a tireless promoter of amorality. In his view, morality is the embodiment of repression and tyranny...just another instrument of class warfare, of the subjection of the "weak" by the "powerful."
But all the same, it is no less than the very truth that amorality goes hand in glove with personal irresponsibility and together they work to enslave men to the State. FWIW.
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.