Photos from a summer trip to the library

Ran across these on my camera and thought I'd post them -- they are from earlier in the year, in the sunny months when snow was just a memory!  These photos are from our local library in north Spokane:

Quote of the day: George Washington on religious pluralism

"Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception."

- George Washington (1732-1799), American Founding Father, Letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, Aug. 15, 1787, quoted in The Founders on Religion:  A Book of Quotations, edited by Jaqmes H. Hutson (Princeton:  2005), pg. 193.

Globalization is not a recent phenomenon

The Western Confucian blog links to a couple of fascinating stories that demonstrate the mobility of ancient peoples:  Ancient Travelers.  One of the stories involves native American DNA dating back hundreds of years showing up in Scandanavian inhabitants of Iceland; the other deals with similar genetic ties between the ancient Romans and a group of villagers in modern western China.  The history of the movement of peoples across our globe is an interesting and strange one -- and modern genetics is helping to illuminate some of that history now.

One thing not to be thankful for today: the Puritans

At least that's the message I'm picking up from this post over at The Western Confucian: A Chestertonian Thanksgiving. I'm not a fan of the Puritans by any means, but I am a fan of Thanksgiving. Fortunately the holiday can transcend the narrow views of the Puritans who first celebrated it.

Related item:  it turns out that the Thanksgiving holiday has a Catholic angle -- the hero of the original Thanksgiving, a native American man named Squanto who took pity on the English Pilgrim settlers and taught them how to grow crops and fish in New English, was a Catholic.  A short version of Squanto's fascinating story may be found over at Taylor Marshall's blog Canterbury Tales.  Fascinating stuff.

Madison's wisdom on pluralism, federalism and liberty

My most recent post over at the American Creation blog:

One of the key building blocks of American liberty is the diversity and pluralism that have existed within our country since the colonial period.   It was precisely the coalescing of the various colonies into a single American nation that solidified that pluralism, as no single colony had sufficient weight to dominate the entirety of the country.  Thus New England remained separate from the South, Pennsylvania from Virginia, South Carolina from its neighbors in Georgia and North Carolina.  The fragmented cultures, demographics and economies of the various colonies, later states, prevented the country from taking on one particular characteristic.  As a consequence, there were a variety of religious, economic, political and social interests throughout America at the time of the Founding, and it was this diversity that spurred on the growth of liberty.  Since no single state, demographic group, religion or economic interest could control the whole, it was in the interest of each differing segment of the country to support freedom for all.

This point was emphasized brilliantly by James Madison in one of his most notable contributions to The Federalist, Essay # 51, dated February 6, 1788.  Written to console the fears of those who thought that the proposed Constitution would create a federal leviathan that would stamp down religious and political rights, Madison emphasized that the true defense of liberty in the United States came not from paper guarantees but on the vibrant and varied interests within the country, interests that emphasize not the centralization of power but rather auger for the pursuit of the common good through the policy of federalism.  As Madison put it so well:

In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased.  Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican cause, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the federal principle.

Federalism, in Madison's presentation, thus forms one -- and perhaps the principal -- guarantees of liberty in the American Republic.  And federalism in Madison's view in The Federalist #51 means a balanced government, with proper powers vested in a general government as well as proper powers retained by the states to deal with properly local issues.  Madison was no radical, particularly when he was writing The Federalist essays with fellow Founders Alexander Hamilton & John Jay.  His defense of "the federal principle," the idea of both a powerful general government and robust local governments, was then and remains today an almost perfect expression of that unique American ideal of the pluralism of interest guaranteeing liberty within the construct of a constitutional order that was itself divided between general and particular structures, between national and state governments.

In praise of an overlooked Founder, John Dickinson

Over at Front Porch Republic, John Wilson has written a short article on why we should pay more attention to John Dickinson (1732-1808):  Our Lost Founders.  Dickinson, as Wilson points out, was an influential force prior to the Declaration of Independence, known not just in the colonies but by the England as well.  Once independence had been declared, Dickinson was active in the Continental Congress and as a result ended up writing the first draft of our nation's first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation.

Wilson notes that if Dickinson had not had the misfortune to fall ill during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he likely would have had a larger impact on our current Constitution than he had -- although as Wilson points out in an aside, he had plenty of influence as it was, both on the text of the Constitution and on its eventual ratification.  He wrote a series of letters in defense of the Constitution under the pen name Fabius. 

Dickinson was also a committed abolitionist.  Unlike many of the Founders, like Jefferson and Madison, who spoke against slavery while enjoying the benefits of owning human property, Dickinson took decisive personal steps against the institution of chattel slavery.  Not content to merely talk the talk like Jefferson and Madison, Dickinson freed his slaves long before it was fashionable to do so.  As Wilson points out, Dickinson freed his slaves because of his commitment to the principles of the American Revolution -- that the freedom sought by the Americans was incompatible with the institution of chattel slavery.  Dickinson prophetically announced that the refusal of the Framers of the Constitution to address the problem of slavery head-on would cause nothing but trouble for the Republic.  Because the slavery issue was not settled on the side of human freedom, as Wilson summarizes Dickinson's position, the Republic was inevitably going to "have to face the consequences of our lack of courage." 

Aside from his historical importance and principled opposition to slavery, Dickinson also stands as a model of a prudent statesman -- a model well in need of revival in our own times.  As Wilson writes:

Dickinson’s first draft of the Articles included provisions for an impost, which would have given the government an income, and subtle powers for the executive functions of the legislature that together would have made the convention of 1787 unnecessary.  He signed off on the Constitution because he was convinced that a combination of the equality of the states (the Senate was his contribution to that frightful summer) and the “power of the people” would restrain what Hamilton and others hoped would become an English-style government.  He also uttered the wisest and most prudent statement of the entire constitutional debate.  On August 13, 1787, he said, “Experience must be our only guide.  Reason may mislead us.”

John Dickinson lived long enough to know how right he had been.  We need to learn which of our fathers to honor.  Dickinson stands for the right combination of limited government, local loyalties, principled freedom, and the rule of law that republican government requires to survive.  We write biographies of nationalists, and pay too little attention to the men who gave us our liberty.

That quote by Dickinson is one of my favorites short quotes by any of the Founders.  It is a testament to his prudent and small-c conservative approach to politics and constitutional order.  A salutary example for our modern age!

[Cross-posted over at American Creation.]

Ron Chernow on Washington as organizational genius

One of my recent posts over at American Creation blog:

Well, I've been reading Ron Chernow's new biography of Washington.  Chernow's book is a delightful and detailed overview of Washington's life and several careers, a worthy follow-up to Chernow's excellent biography of the under-appreciated Alexander Hamilton.  I'm not going to review the whole book here.  Instead, I want to focus my attention on a single chapter that I think displays some of Chernow's real insights into Washington's leadership, namely, chapter 49, dealing with Washington's organization of the executive branch just after the first presidental election under the current Constitution.

As Chernow points out, Washington's task in organizing the executive branch was daunting.  In 1789 he had to hire nearly a 1000 people to fill the variety of posts that the new federal government necessitated.  Washington, always concerned about appearances and public morality, made a strong stand against nepotism and favoritism in assigning most of the jobs.  For the top jobs in his administration -- the cabinet -- Washington did rely on people that he knew well, but they were all people that he was convinced were competent and qualified for their jobs.  His judgment wasn't always correct -- his secretary of war, Henry Knox, while held in close regard by Washington, was not, as Chernow puts it, "an original policy thinker."  He was overshadowed the other members of the cabinet -- Hamilton, Jefferson and Edmund Randolph. 

Two appointments at the beginning of Washington's administration stand out as the ultimate oil and water match:  Alexander Hamilton as treasury secretary and Thomas Jefferson as secretary of state.  Hamilton was Washington's second choice for the job, but as Chernow details, he was the perfect lieutenant for Washington, executing his office with an attention to detail and a vision that he had honed over years of studying finance.  Hamilton, as Chernow notes, acted as Washington's "unofficial prime minister," developing the administration's legislative agenda to take advantage of Washington's honeymoon period with Congress.

Jefferson, like Hamilton, was a second choice for the position at secretary of state.  Washington's first choice, John Jay, turned down the job, preferring to be appointed the first chief justice of the new federal Supreme Court.  Chernow details how Washington chose Jefferson and how Jefferson's ambivalent approach to the new constitutional government, along with his tendency towards passive-aggressive communication (what Chernow characterizes as "indirect, sometimes devious methods of dealing with disagreements") caused tensions to build in their relationship.  "Jefferson started out venerating Washington," as Chernow writes, but he would eventually become "far more critical."  Jefferson, born a Virginia aristocrat, an owner of slaves, and a politician himself, "was dismayed by the political atmosphere in New York," the nation's temporary capital city.  Smelling aristocracy everywhere, Jefferson resented the royal aura that surrounded Washington, and he was increasing concerned over Hamilton's growing power throughout the government.  Thus the seeds for the break up of the cabinet later in Washington's administration were set early.

Chernow does an especially good job highlighting Washington's attention to the federal judiciary.  As a lawyer, I found this part of Chernow's discussion in this chapter particularly interesting.  Washington took his responsibility to appoint judges quite seriously, and he staffed the federal judiciary with a great deal of care.  Washington went so far as to insist that the judiciary, as Chernow quotes him, "must be considered as the keystone of our political fabric."  While the Court was not nearly as august an institution at its beginning as it would later become under Chief Justice Marshall, Washington took pains to see that the Court was properly staffed and lead under the able hand of his colleague John Jay.

As befits someone who has written about business history as well as political history, Chernow spends time detailing Washington's strengths as the executive in charge of administering the government under the then-new Constitution.  His leadership of the cabinet was characterized by open discussion with the department heads.  He was insistent on the maintenance of records, even going so far as to require that all letters be recorded in triplicate.  He was critical of others, but also critical of himself, demanding high standards for those who worked in his administration.  Slow to come to decisions, he was perceptive and resolute once a decision was made.  In the view of Jefferson, nobody else had better judgment.  While not one to be either warm or effusive, Washington also never fell into the trap of adulation that would have trapped any other politician, as Chernow observes, in "idolatry."  While Washington could be "cunning," he possess "no low scheming."  He kept his promises, didn't scheme, and he respected the public that had placed him in office.  Chernow recounts how, when asked how to function well in politics, Washington replied with the old saying that honesty was "the best policy."

To wrap up my review, I'll note that Chernow tells two stories that give the reader some particular insight about Washington as a leader.  First, it turns out that Washington had a critical role in the ratification of the Bill of Rights.  During his first term Washington was initially hostile to the idea of a Bill of Rights, he came around to supporting Madison's idea of amending the Constitution.  Eventually, Washington's support for Madison's amendments won the day for the Bill of Rights, eventually leading not only to their incorporation in the Constitution, but for North Carolina and Rhode Island to be incorporated into the Union. Washington was flexible enough to revisit issues and change his approach when prudence dictated a different course for the good of the country. 

Second, that Washington, prior to meeting Jefferson in the latter's role as secretary of state, spent the morning in prayer at St. Paul's Chapel in New York.  While this is a minor point in Chernow's narrative, it is a telling point about Washington's religiosity.  While Washington may well have been an unconventional believer as far as Anglicans at the time went, there is little question that he was a pious man.  While it may be that, like Lincoln after him, Washington's sense of religious faith deepened as he assumed the difficult burden of being the nation's chief magistrate, it is nonetheless true that on key moments, like prior to his meeting with Jefferson, Washington evidenced himself to be a man of prayer.

Quote of the day: on justice

In this disordered age, when it seems as if the fountains of the great deep had been broken up, our urgent need is to restore a general understanding of the classical and Christian teaching about justice. Without just men and women, egoism and appetite bring down a civilization. Without strong administration of justice by the state,we all become so many Cains, every man's hand against every other man's. The humanitarian fancies himself zealous for the life impulse; in reality, he would surrender us to the death impulse. The humanitarian's visions issue from between the delusory gates of ivory; justice issues from between the gates of horn.

Public instruction that ignores both our classical patrimony and our religious patrimony may fail to rear up just men and women. Positivist jurisprudence that denies any moral order and any religious sanction for justice may end in a general flouting of all law. We prate of "peace and justice" in a dissolving culture, without apprehending tolerably the words we employ. "Shrieking voices/Scolding, mocking, or merely chattering,/ Always assail them." These are the voices of the ideologue, the neurotic, and the nihilist, pulling down the old understanding of Justice, "to each his own."

"Justice is a certain rectitude of mind, whereby a man does what he ought to do in the circumstances confronting him." So Thomas Aquinas instructs us. At every college and university, the doctors of the schools ought to inquire of themselves, "Do we impart such rectitude of mind? And if we do not, will there be tolerable private or public order in the twenty-first century?"

- Russell Kirk (1918-1994), The Meaning of Justice (Heritage Lecture, March 4, 1993).

Quote of the day: on statesmanship

"A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman."

- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), English writer, Whig member of Parliament, and grandfather of modern conservatism.

Christopher Hitchens and the difference religious faith makes in the fight against tyranny

A point made by the atheist-writer and general no-fan-of-religion Christopher Hitchens during a discussion with his younger and wiser brother Peter Hitchens:

When Lech Walesa was starting his work in the Polish shipyards and the Polish Militia and the outer ring of the Polish Army were closing in on Gdansk, he was interviewed with his then fairly small group, and he was asked: “Aren't you frightened, aren't you afraid? You've taken on a whole powerful state and army - aren't you scared?” And he said: “I'm not frightened of anything but God or anyone but God.”

Christopher Hitchens then went on to acknowledge that he wouldn't have been able to say anything like that and that it was a "noble" idea.  And he is right on both counts.

The American founders understood that it was faith in God, a God who stood above and beyond the State, that make the idea of limited government possible, that made the idea of human rights possible, that made the idea of common, ordinary people rising up to resist tyranny possible.  As Benjamin Rush put it,

I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of republicanism.  The spirit is opposed, not only to the splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many of its precepts have for their objects republican liberty and equality as well as simplicity, integrity, and economy in government.  It is only necessary for republicanism to ally itself to the Christian religion to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world.

Benjamin Rush to Thomas Jefferson, August 22, 1800, quoted in The Founders on Religion:  A Book of Quotations, edited by James H. Hutson (Princeton:  2005), pg. 195.

The abolitionists during the 19th century understood this.  The civil rights movement was built on this idea.  As Hitchen's points out, one of the great leaders in modern Europe's struggle for liberty, Lech Walesa, literally lived this principle.

And without religious faith, without the belief that there is a God who stands above all merely human institutions and will hold all of us accountable for the good and evil that we do, the tapestry of human rights, the rule of law and the freedom of the human person is very difficult to maintain.  As the Founders well understood, for liberty to thrive, there must be some power greater than that of the government.  Without religious faith, such a power is difficult to conceptualize.

(Hat tip to The Western Confucian.)

The influence of John Locke on Catholic social teaching

I've been reading through John Locke's Essay on Toleration -- or at least I was until I got swamped at work -- and I have been pondering the links between Locke's ideas and the teaching of the Catholic Church, particularly Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council. Turns out that the always interesting Western Confucian blog has a post on the topic: Baptizing John Locke. Well worth a read!