|
Let's Get Back to Basics.
Politicos are gearing up for the fight over who should fill the vacancy on the highest court in the land. Yet, a recent poll revealed that a vast majority of the ordinary citizens of America cannot name a single one of the Supreme Court Justices. More disturbing is that a large segment of our population doesn't understand that judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law, not make it up. It's time to get back to basics, or civics. We had a very interesting chat with a fellow who will take us through some of the basics of what our country is about.
Gil Davis calls himself a "country lawyer" who represented Paula Jones in her lawsuit against President Clinton. This first part of the interview was interesting to us because he used the classical method of answering our questions... he gave examples.
Helen: We'd like to remind Americans today about the foundations of America. We had all been reminded, during President Reagan's funeral, that once one has a firm grasp of one's core principles, it's alot easier to make decisions. So we'd like to hear some of your current ideas and work, but also to delve into the basic principles that sustain you. Too often we hear people complaining they don't know how to make a decision one way or the other. Sometimes a bit of American history and knowledge of basic foundational principles of our country will help. We're trying to fill the gap where the current educational system is failing.
Gil: We have to have everyone feel sensitive and socially adjusted and so we have classes on that, yet civics are sometimes ignored.
Helen: Few people realize America is often called the Great Experiment because it is an experiment in human freedom and self-government. What do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of this system of government?
Gil: When you say it's an experiment, that's right. It really was the new thing on the block. We were the first republic since the Roman republic. George Washington was the first leader of a nation who voluntarily relinquished his job as leader to go back to his home. He wasn't assassinated or deposed. He could have been a king if he had wanted to, because he was the only one they trusted.
Peter: Let me clarify something. You mentioned that the American republic was the first republic since the Roman republic. It's pretty obvious how a republic differs from a monarchy, but how would you distinguish it from the general term we use, democracy?
Gil: A republic is a representative government where people choose those who make the decisions, the people themselves don't make the decisions. The Athenian model is where the people themselves made the decisions. The Athenian model was interesting in that they had rotating leaders and big committees of three or four hundred, so in a sense they were representative, but they were all involved directly in the decisions. It was wise of our founders to construct our system the way they did because it was easier to put in checks and balances so that the majority could work its will, but still maintain rights for the minority. In a direct democracy, minority rights could be squelched. Plus a direct democracy for this country as it's developed and grown would be an almost impossible way to govern. Now, ironically, with the internet, maybe everyone could have direct access. However, probably everyone wouldn't want to take the time it would require, especially now, with a government that's into everything.
Helen: We've heard it suggested that people could use the remote controls on their TV, but wouldn't that just promote the passion of the moment, the very thing our founding fathers wanted to diminish?
Gil: Sure, that's why we have a representative government, based on the Roman model. Even our architecture in Washington DC is Roman, not Greek. There's a story of Samuel Adams showing up in a Roman toga before the revolution to remind people what form of government we were going to fight for. A hero of the revolution, who is not even read anymore, was Cicero. All the Founding Fathers were well versed in Roman and Greek history; the Classics.
Helen: So where would the strengths and weaknesses be in this system? For instance, some people might think that their representatives don't really represent them.
Gil: Edmund Burke said, "your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgement. He betrays you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Now, because public office holders have to go back to their home and the people in their district to get renewed in office, that in itself is a check on totally ignoring their own constituencies. But the fact that they serve terms gives them the opportunity to be safe in using their judgement, but sometimes you have to use judgement when you're not safe.
For example, Edmund Ross was the saving vote in Samuel Johnson's impeachment. The State Senates then selected their US Senators, and he was selected by the Tennessee legislature for the express purpose of getting Johnson out. He even campaigned on the platform to impeach Johnson, but when it all came out he realized, "here was not an impeachable offense." He said, "I look down into my political grave." He thought it was just political hatred of Johnson and he said that to the last day, even though he had a possibility of becoming a Presidential candidate himself. On the other hand, if you don't pay attention to your constituents, because it's part of your duty, you will have to pay the price. There's a fine balance that has to be struck. Balances are never struck exactly, but one has to keep that balance in mind at all times.
Daniel Webster when speaking of the Missouri Compromise said, "I speak to you today not as a Massachusetts Man, nor a Northern man, but as an American about issues that transcend one's parochial issues." Those who are willing to vote their conscience in the legislature are the Statesmen.
Just as an aside, Steven Douglas (and just about everyone else) thought the Missouri Compromise of 1850 settled the slavery question. No slavery above the Mason Dixon line, slavery below it. Then the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed those two states to decide on the basis of popular sovereignty, really is what lit the fires that finally flamed into the Civil War. It opened up that question again and actually brought Lincoln back into politics again because he was so opposed to state sovereignty on an issue that everybody thought had been settled.
Peter: Now Kansas and Nebraska are west of the Mississippi and north of the Mason Dixon line. They were threatening to permit slavery.
Gil: Yes. You see, the South thought the Missouri Compromise was OK with the present state structure because there were pretty much an even number of state senators on both sides of the line. However, if Kansas and Nebraska came in as free states then there would be a potential for more anti-slavery opinion, and there would be a possibility of the South losing in the national legislature. So this was a way Steven Douglas thought would appease everyone. Instead, it just boiled up.
What happened was that there was a race to Kansas and Nebraska by slave-state and free-state people. The first legislature in Kansas actually voted for slavery. That was then upset by more newcomers. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas because there was warfare on the prairie.
Helen: Conflict always seems to exist in a democracy.
Peter: I take it that example shows one of the weaknesses in the system.
Gil: Any system constructed by man has flaws because we are not the Almighty and infinitely wise. We have our own egos, philosophies, personalities. Slavery, however, was an issue that sometime had to be resolved. It's abolishment was imbedded in the Founding of our nation, recognized in our Constitution. Slavery was in some sense a poison in the body politic. It eventually came to the differences in the regions; economically for instance, chattel slavery provided labor in the South, while the North was becoming industrialized.
It's why Lincoln, in issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, was much criticized because there was no high, lofty phrase in it; it did not bring freedom to any existing slave because it only established it in territories already under the control of the Federal Government. Thus, some people say it is not a great document. Those people are wrong.
Peter: So let's clarify this. The Emancipation Proclamation was more like a statement of principle?
Gil: It was enacted during the Civil War, after Lincoln got his first victory at Antietam. It was also a way to keep Britain from coming into the war on the side of the South, since there was so much anti-slavery sentiment in Britain. But the true genius of it was put forth by Lincoln who was a man of principled cleverness. Lincoln did not believe he had the power to abolish slavery. Instead he premised his plan on his position as Commander in Chief and on the basis of military necessity. He said that in order to achieve victory this was a necessity that was required. At other times he certainly spoke about the immorality of slavery, but knew he couldn't win on that basis.
The genius was that every place the Union forces liberated, they brought freedom with them for the slaves. In addition to saving the Union it gave Union troops an additional moral cause to fight for.
An example... early in the war there were slaves who got to Union lines and the Union Generals would declare them free. Lincoln rescinded their orders because, legally, in the South, slaves were property. Only after they won the territory could the Union seize the "contraband", or slaves who were considered property, and then set them free. He couldn't merely abolish the law.
Helen: As a morale booster, one of the stanzas in the Battle Hymn of the Republic speaks of making men free:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me:
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Note from Peter and Helen: Did any of you notice a change in the words? Yes, political correctness has even crept into the Battle Hymn of the Republic. Instead of "let us 'die' to make men free," the newer versions don't want to upset anyone so they sing "let us 'live' to make men free."
End of selection. If you want more of this very interesting interview, go to "http://peterandhelenevans.com/int-davis.html"
If you would like to get these posts directly into your mail box, send an e mail to we2rone@cox.net and put subscribe into the subject line.  [Let's Get Back to Basics, Part 1]
 |
Subscribe in a reader - Use any popular RSS reader to get Orthodox Biz news and content!
Get the Orthodox Biz Latest News by Email! New articles and content sent right to your email in-box as soon as they are published!
Subscribe to this comment's feed