Outliving this Day and Coming Safe Home

Wonder why Warren Buffet thinks rich people should pay more taxes? Well maybe his fortune came to him too easy, and he feels guilty about it, sort of like survivors of an event in which others died. Myself, I can’t see feeling guilty in either instance, but maybe I’m warped. I suppose Warren has his own thing going, but I sure would trust his judgment about where to invest over that of Congress or the President (or the myriad of bureaucrats Congress has given discretion to spend). But here is a rather succinct colloquy from the 1955 film Giant (with Elizabeth Taylor, James Dean, and Rock Hudson”

Leslie Benedict: Money isn’t everything, Jett.

Jett Rink: Not to them that’s got it.

Of course, the Jett Rink character went on to make his fortune by striking oil. Speaking of oil, the Washington Post op-ed page today had an essay by some guy named Bill McKibben who has a website dedicated stop stopping construction of a Canadian tar sands pipeline to the Gulf. There is believed to be a huge amount of petroleum in those sands in Alberta, but Mr. McKibben believes extraction and use it will contribute to global warming and other environmental harm. He avers that the President can unilaterally stop the pipeline without any Congressional action by withholding a national interest certification, or some such thing. If President Obama disapproves this pipeline, it will be sheer idiocy. It is a step toward lessening the dependence on Middle Eastern oil. I am not a global warming denier — I’m more of an agnostic in that regard. But that does not matter. We are not going to go back to living in caves and reading at night by candlelight; the people of this country will not stand for that — full stop, end of argument. Until we get off the dime and get serious about building more nuclear power plants (with appropriate safety measures), and continuing research into fusion, we will rely on hydrocarbons. There is a fundamental physical fact as to why. There is no substance other than petroleum that contains such huge quantities of energy in a portable, mostly safe, usable form. The “green” sources are pathetic and futile, and cause problems of their own which are vastly out of proportion to their benefits.

Cheers!

Some readers have asked about the reference in my last missive to the English Bill of Rights seemingly limiting the right have arms to”subjects which are Protestants” as the beneficiaries of the right to have arms.

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;” English Bill of Rights, 1 Will. & Mary Session 2, Ch 2, Cl 7.

“The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England Book I, Chapter 1.

Both are available on line at the Avalon Project. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/

The Bill of Rights was enacted in the wake of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which Parliament deposed King James II and invited his daughter and son-in-law to assume the English throne. James succeeded to the throne upon the death without legitimate issue of his brother, Charles II. He had grown up in France during the Cromwellian interregnum, and was there exposed to the Divine Right of Kings theory of Louis XIV. James also converted to Roman Catholicism. Upon his accession, he attempted to rule as an absolute monarch and to impose his religious faith on the English. His second wife, Mary of Modena was Italian, and was widely suspected of being an agent of the Pope, the Papacy still being a political power at the time, and diametrically opposed to England’s foreign interests.

James, like absolutists before and since, attempted to disarm the citizenry, thus giving rise to the right to have arms clause in the Bill of Rights, expressly limiting it to Protestants. The “suitable to their conditions” probably meant that private citizens would not possess artillery and could be construed to exclude the lower orders of English society. The “as allowed by law” in effect made the right meaningless in the future. Parliament has unlimited theoretical power, including the power to change the un-codified British Constitution. Its only limitation is that it cannot bind a future Parliament. An Act of Parliament cannot be unconstitutional. The practical limit to its power is the strong tradition of adherence to its institutions, including the monarchy, which has the theoretical power to dissolve Parliament.

Quite simply, Britain could restore the right of the people to keep and bear arms by a single Act of Parliament. It is doubtful it would do that, however. Even though it has been proven in this country that increased access to and the ability to carry weapons is always accompanied by a decrease in crime, there is a widespread belief to the contrary, as well as a century-long trend to restrict firearms (and virtually every other type of weapon in Britain). In the wake of these recent riots, that could be changing, but I doubt it.

For an interesting summary of the history of gun control in Britain and the unhappy results, see http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

Cheers!

Bob Reagan

I offerthe link to this essay http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-10.html for your consideration. As you may know, Ms. Coulter is a columnist and commentator, generally regarded as politically right-wing, and somewhat of a bomb-thrower. As a matter fact one of my friends (who may be reading this) once referred to her as a harridan. I suppose all that is true, as Ms. Coulter tends to raise all kinds of hackles with her super-sarcastic turns of phrases (which is not a bad thing), and in this essay she makes some rather good points. I add my own.

The first is that the British welfare system has fostered a cult of dependency among many Britons. This means that a large part of the population have been reduced to drones who have no function other than to take up space and breed more generations of drones. In decades past, mostly before our lifetimes, the British aristocracy, the Dukes of Earl, and Earls of Duke, were decried as parasites by many reformers. (Of course, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biology knows that parasites have their uses, and play a role in evolution, and actually can be useful.) David Lloyd George, when calling for the reform of Parliament in 1911, referred to the nobility as “ordinary man, chosen accidentally from among the unemployed.” It is now ironic that the underclass drones, now appear to be such a group. Nevertheless, the nobility, and for that matter the monarchy, in Britain has long since morphed into a major tourist attraction as its primary raison d’être – a kind of Disneyland for adults. That is why occasional calls from various lunatics for the abolition of the monarchy don’t go anywhere. Without it, Great Britain would have the panache of Belarus.

I suppose that it might be a credit to the British that they have managed to survive for nearly 60 years as a cradle to the grave welfare state without totally collapsing. They may have come to the brink in late 70s, but Margaret Thatcher managed to pull them back, at least for a while. I’m not discounting the value of the export of the Beatles and other rock musicians to the British economy as a significant aid to propping up their nanny state. Of course, that value is nowhere near the extent provided by the erstwhile colonies of two centuries past who defended the sceptered isle for the past 60 years.

The only bright spot I see at the moment is that David Cameron, if he manages to stay firm and quell the rioting, might be in a position to extend his term as prime minister and actually roll back the welfare state to some degree. At least possibly he can dismantle the more extreme idiocy such as providing tropical vacations (called holidays in Britain) to illegitimate welfare mothers.

There are those who wring their hands about the rioting in Britain, as well as that in Greece, which had a more direct relationship to the cutting of government expenditures for benefits, might be a harbinger of what could happen here the United States. I’m not particularly worried about that, at least not in the short term. A good number of Americans are already on board with cutting back on federal government provided “entitlements” and balancing the budget. The trend seems to be in that direction. It now seems apparent that a large part of President Obama’s appeal in 2008 was that he was not George W. Bush – that is, George W. Bush the big spender, who for eight years refused to rein in Congressional spending on pet projects, of which both of our major political parties were guilty. As alluded to above, another reason was that the British welfare state was possible because during the 50 years of the Cold War, Britain had the luxury of living under the military umbrella of the United States, and did not have to commit a significant amount of its resources to defense. They didn’t need Big Brother to defend them when they had Uncle Sam. Uncle does not have that luxury; the buck indeed stops here.

Another difference when it comes to the uninhibited rioting and looting, is that in most parts of America the populace is armed with guns, in some cases literally armed to the teeth. In many states, Texas being one example, they have the law on their side, allowing them to use deadly force to protect their property, property being a fundamental right ensconced in our Constitution. Yes, there has been some rioting and looting in the United States. Some of it, such as the race riots of the 1960s in inner cities, was understandable if not excusable. In those affrays, quite a few looters met their demise, not from the police, from rioters attempting to loot shops and homes defended by armed citizens. For at least the past 50 years, the monthly magazine of the National Rifle Association has chronicled instances of armed citizens thwarting criminals from plying their trade. Britons, of course, have been effectively disarmed. It is illegal, to my understanding, to even own a handgun, and rifles and shotguns are only permitted to be stored in police approved hunting clubs.

It is ironic that the English Bill of Rights which Parliament enacted in the wake of the glorious Revolution of 1688, and is a forerunner of our Second Amendment, gave the right to all free citizens (if they were Protestant that is) to keep and bear arms, has long since been discarded in that regard. What would be a step in the right direction is the restoration of that right in Britain. Perhaps it’s time for the well-known British stiff upper lip to be bolstered by some iron in their collective spine.

Cheers!

Bob Reagan

O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
That ever lived in the tide of times.
Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,–
Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue–
A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
Blood and destruction shall be so in use
And dreadful objects so familiar T
hat mothers shall but smile when they behold
Their infants quarter’d with the hands of war;
All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry ‘Havoc,’ and let slip the dogs of war;
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

– Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1

It does not take a great deal of imagination to convert Mark Antony’s lamentation to an allegory whereby Abraham Lincoln mourns the dismemberment of the Union (Caesar) by the secessionist South (Brutus and the others). The prophecy was true enough: the dogs of war did slip, and there were over six hundred thousand carrion men buried before it was over. Shakespeare was a master of tragedy, and if that overused word ever is appropriately applied to a national collective, it certainly is to the American Civil War. A tragedy is a certain doom to one who is otherwise a paragon of nobility and rectitude, but possesses a tragic flaw of character that brings about that misfortune. The flaw in ancient Greek tragedy was hubris, precipitated by a latent fateful condition becoming manifest. Among Shakespearean flaws were the ambition of Macbeth, the jealousy of Othello, and the indecision of Hamlet. The tragic flaw of America, of course, was the system of chattel slavery, which came to be regarded as an economic and social necessity in the Southern states, but at the same time was an institution diametrically opposed to the Enlightenment ideals of the Nation’s founding. It was, practically speaking, more than that. “Unrequited labor,” in Lincoln’s words, was incompatible with the free market capitalism that was emerging along with the rapid technological changes of the industrial revolution.

There have been thousands – perhaps tens of thousands – of books written about the Civil War. With the coming of the sesquicentennial, there are certain to be many more. Historians, as well as others of all stripe, will continue to argue about the causes, the issues, and the legacies. Of course, the “ifs” – the counterfactual speculation – will be prominent, as they always are. One of the “ifs” surrounds the series of events leading up to the attack on Fort Sumter 150 years ago, the attack itself, and the aftermath when the conflict became inevitable.

Beginning on December 20, 1860, and through the first week of February 1861, the six states of the lower South and Texas left the Union. By early April no other state had seceded, and it was not clear that others would. Unionist sentiment was strong in the upper South and border states, particularly in the Appalachian and Ozark highlands. Virginia assembled a convention to consider secession, but had actually rejected it – more than once. Various attempts were made to resolve the crisis, especially an effort by Kentucky Senator John Crittenden and an informal House Committee of Thirty-Three, who proposed to amend the Constitution – ironically, it would have been the 13th Amendment – to protect slavery where it existed. While maintaining the Union was central to Lincoln’s and the Republican Party’s purpose, there was sentiment in the North to let the secessionist states go in peace, at least so long as no organized violence had been directed at the Government. The history of warfare is replete with peoples who probably could have worked out their differences but for an improvident act of violence.

In the process of secession, the departing states had demanded possession of federal enclaves within their borders, and for the most part, those were surrendered. The exceptions were three forts on Florida islands, and Fort Sumter, located on an island in Charleston harbor.

Fort Sumter had potential strategic value in that its location could have blocked the entrance to Charleston, but its garrison, armament, and provisions at the time were inadequate for that task. Its primary value was symbolic; to the Union, it was United States government territory, and thus inviolate; to South Carolina and the new Confederacy, it was an affront to the independence and sovereignty the secessionist states were asserting. Symbols, of course, are ostensibly what wars are fought for, at least to those who have to do the fighting, and are not unimportant. Still, Sumter posed no military threat to the port of Charleston, the state, or the Confederacy.

What was important about Sumter beyond its merely symbolic value was the effect of militarily defending it. Lincoln’s expressed resolve to hold onto federal property was of utmost concern to the Upper South states still in the Union; sending federal troops to South Carolina would require their passage though Virginia and North Carolina. Conversely, after Lincoln’s inauguration, rumors out of Washington that Sumter might be given up was seen as allaying that concern. Those rumors were a result, at least partly, of the new Secretary of State William Seward’s clumsy, or cunningly devious, communications to the Confederate government.

Shortly after his inauguration on March 4, President Lincoln was made aware of dispatches from Major Robert Anderson, the commander at Fort Sumter, that the fort only had sufficient provisions for six weeks. Lincoln had to decide whether to abandon or re-supply the garrison. Seward expressed his belief that Sumter should not be reinforced because that was exactly the kind of act that would precipitate violence. Five of the seven cabinet members agreed, and so voted when polled. Lincoln remained undecided, mindful of the Virginia convention, which remained in session for possible reconsideration of its rejections. Lincoln considered agreeing to evacuate Sumter if the Virginia convention would dissolve, figuring that saving the state for the Union by giving up a fort was not a bad deal. That thought that did not go anywhere.

Meanwhile, in mid-March, Seward began communicating with Supreme Court Justice John Campbell, an Alabaman who had not yet left the Court, but acted as an intermediary between the administration and the commissioners Confederate President Jefferson Davis had sent to Washington. Seward, probably without Lincoln’s authority, told Campbell that Fort Sumter would be evacuated. When this did not occur, Seward equivocated to Campbell first by saying that there were no plans to re-supply the fort, and then later, that the fort would not be re-supplied without advance notice to the South Carolina governor. On April 6, Lincoln signed an order dispatching a naval expedition to re-supply the fort. Seward again told Campbell that the government would fully keep faith regarding his previous communications as to Sumter, which Campbell reported to Davis. On April 8 an envoy in Columbia delivered a message to Governor Pickens to the effect that Fort Sumter would be re-supplied with provisions only, and if not resisted, no reinforcements, arms, or munitions would be delivered.

The Confederate cabinet assembled to discuss the events. Many believed Seward’s series of mis-communications was intentional deception, and that there really was a plan to reinforce the fort, and even more. Some suggested an immediate attack on the fort, others cautioned restraint. Robert Toombs of Georgia, though one of the most ardent secessionists, cautioned Jefferson Davis: “Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend in the North. You will wantonly strike a hornet’s nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal.” Despite this prescient warning, Davis sent orders to General P.G.T. Beauregard to reduce the fort if he determined that the federal re-supply efforts were in earnest. On April 11, Beauregard sent two men to the fort demanding that his former West Point artillery instructor Anderson surrender, with honorable terms, including a salute to the flag. Anderson had no authority to do so, and refused.

And so, at 4:30 a.m. April 12, 1861, sixty-seven year old Edmund Ruffin, a Virginian and ardent secessionist, pulled the lanyard of a howitzer; the shot burst in the air over Fort Sumter. After a two day bombardment, during which no one on either side was killed, the fort surrendered. (After the surrender, a Union soldier was killed by a mishap during a final 50 gun salute to the flag.) Thus, the rush into the abyss of full blown war began. Lincoln immediately called for 75,000 volunteers from loyal states to serve to suppress the rebellion. Beginning with Virginia, the Upper South states seceded, and the die was cast. The ensuing havoc wracked the nation for four years, with the aftermath and ramifications lasting down to our own day.

As Major Anderson led his troops onto the relief ship, bearing the fort’s tattered flag he vowed to be buried with, it is reported that the Confederate soldiers on shore stood silently with their heads bared. As it was to turn out, there was no reason to cheer.

Note: Sources for the foregoing included Mark Egnal, Clash of Extremes (2009); Nelson Lankford, Cry Havoc: The Crooked Road to Civil War (2007); and generally Shelby Foote, The Civil War, A Narrative (Volume I, Fort Sumter to Perryville) (1958), and numerous others.

Last December 20 marked the sesquicentennial of South Carolina’s secession from the Union. Next week will mark anniversary for the attack on Fort Sumter, setting in motion the events that would result in the most destructive war our country has ever suffered. Predictably, a number of pundits weighed in shortly after the secession anniversary, starting with one Edward Ball in the New York Times, followed soon by our local Dallas Morning News editorial board member Nicole Stockdale, who suggested it as a talking point, and, today, Washington Post regular contributor E. J. Dionne. More followed and still more undoubtedly will.

Mr. Ball and Ms. Stockdale ask us, particularly those in the South, to reflect that the Civil War was about slavery, and we should beat our breasts with appropriate shame. Mr. Dionne, surprisingly, is more balanced, but still concerned that Confederate apologists will attempt to “whitewash” the secession and War. After 150 years, one would think we would be past recriminations, but the sanctimonious among us will not have it so.

What was the Civil War all about?

“All wars are sacred, to those who have to fight them. If the people who started wars didn’t make them sacred, who would be foolish enough to fight? But, no matter what rallying cries the orators give to the idiots who fight, no matter what noble purposes they assign to wars, there is never but one reason for a war. And that is money. All wars are in reality money squabbles. But so few people ever realize it. Their ears are too full of bugles and drums and the fine words from stay-at-home orators. Sometimes the rallying cry is ‘save the Tomb of Christ from the Heathen!’ Sometimes it’s ’down with Popery!’ and sometimes ‘Liberty!’ and sometimes ‘Cotton, Slavery and States’ Rights!’” – Margaret Mitchell, Gone With The Wind (speaking through her character Rhett Butler).

Yes, all wars are fought over money. A recent work by York University historian Mark Egnal, Clash of Extremes performs a detailed and painstaking analysis of the events leading up to it, and empirically validates Mitchell’s thesis as to the reasons we had a Civil War. It was all about money, or, more accurately, wealth, and how it is produced. The War was an epic struggle between the ancient feudal agrarian economic system, and the burgeoning free market capitalism made possible by the scientific-technological-industrial revolution which flowed from the ideas of the Enlightenment. In the large picture, in a process which is still going on, the War was a step in the dismantling of the ancient and medieval idea of the Great Chain of Being, which held that everyone was born into an immutable class: the king and his nobles at the top, and serfs and slaves at the bottom. This process was the long, and often rough and painful, transition from caste defined by the accident of birth to the concept that “all men are created equal.”

We should reject the notion that any one of us today should have shame for slavery as it existed in the 19th Century and before. Why? For the same reason we should not feel shame (or necessarily take pride) in something we have had nothing to do with. There is no one alive on this Earth who does not have ancestors who were oppressed – or oppressors. By today’s moral standards, human bondage is wrong. That is a standard which has only gained acceptance in the past 200 years or so. Compare that it was once considered moral and even laudable to burn suspected witches alive, and inflict fiendish punishments on others who thought differently. For millennia, slavery was acceptable as part of an economic system that had been universally approved, and only became morally suspect with the liberation of the human mind by the Reformation, Age of Reason, and Enlightenment. Its entrenchment in the United States – which occurred prior to the time the last witches were hanged in Massachusetts – was not limited to the Southern states, although it persisted there because of the plantation economy. In fact, it was in many ways the welfare system of many bodies politic. It took care of the least functional members of the populace in return for menial labor. It still exists today in some backwater countries.

The Southern leaders who brought about secession ill-served their constituencies. They wished to maintain slavery because it was the bulwark of the economic system that they knew, and, while becoming increasingly morally suspect, was not considered the abomination that we, with the benefit of hindsight, regard it today. They sought to preserve an archaic system, and in so doing, coupled with the clumsy manner in which they reacted to Lincoln’s election, precipitated a disastrous war. (For more on this topic, see another recent work: Nelson Lankford’s Cry Havoc: The Crooked Road to Civil War).

Those who actually fought for the Confederacy — the poor men who fought the rich men’s war — were less cognizant of the economic reasons, but they understood the invasion of their homeland by outsiders – foreigners, really. Today we forget that what some historians have referred to as the “tyranny of distance” made one much more likely to identify with their state and region more than with the huge nation America was becoming. They, and even those who led the secessionist movement, did not fight to establish slavery – they were defending their homeland against a perceived invasion – which included defending the status quo they inherited, and which only a small minority of Americans wanted to abolish when the War began.

As for Abraham Lincoln, he was much more interested at first in preserving the Union for economic purposes than he was in ending slavery. He understood that ending slavery was necessary to preserve and foster the free-market capitalist system, which was a moral purpose of its own. During the War, Lincoln came to realize that making the War explicitly a crusade against slavery was all the more useful because the moral value of free-market capitalism and destroying an institution that held men in bondage have the same underpinning – human freedom. That is what our country – all of it, North and South, East and West, however imperfectly – has been about since its inception.

It really makes no more sense to vilify those who would commemorate the service of their ancestors in the Civil War – on either side. When it comes down to combat, soldiers don’t fight for their country, for ideals, even for money, they fight to stay alive, and, if they can do that, to help keep their buddy next to them in the trenches or foxholes alive. That by itself is honorable, but when it comes down to the reason they were there in the first place: it’s the money.

More to come.

There have been a number of comments regarding the Texas Declaration of Independence, a copy of which I sent out last week, having a decidedly anti-Catholic and anti-clerical tone, given its denunciation of “the combined despotism of the sword and the priesthood” as one of the reasons for separation from Mexico.

Anti-clericalism, which was not unknown in Western nations from the time of the Reformation on, especially during the late 18th and 19th Centuries. This phenomenon was the reaction against the Roman Catholic hierarchy – the Pope, bishops, and abbots – for their perceived, and in many cases real complicity in providing support for oppressive regimes in Europe. Anti-clericalism took upon a particularly virulent and violent character during the French Revolution. The First Estate of the estates-general, after all, was the higher clergy who allied themselves with the Second Estate nobility, and against the Third Estates, which was the rest of the people. Those “lords spiritual” in France and elsewhere in Europe had behaved more like the current Islamic ayatollahs than as pastors to the faithful, throughout much of history. While anti-clericalism came about as a result of the Reformation it was not wholly Protestant. Many Catholics, otherwise devout, might have been so considered, particularly in France.

The Anglo-American settlers in Texas, brought in by the empresarios like Stephen F Austin and others, were overwhelmingly Protestant. The original grants from the Spanish viceroy, and later the Mexican authorities, contemplated that the Anglo settlers brought in to Texas, primarily to establish a buffer between the sparse Mexican population in Coahuila y Texas the Indians, would either be Roman Catholic or would convert. Spain, of course, had long been militantly Catholic (the monarch since the 16th century had been styled “His Most Catholic Majesty”), and the newly independent Mexico was officially Roman Catholic. While neither the Catholic Mexicans nor the Protestant settlers gave much thought to theology, each group was thoroughly acculturated by their respective Mediterranean/Catholic and Nordic/Protestant heritages.

As may be recalled, the Reformation in Europe was as much a political event and struggle as a religious/theological one. Much like the schism between the Orthodox and the Roman churches in the 11th century, a theological basis for a split was necessary to justify the political one. Unlike the earlier schism, however, which was purported to be over the obscure filioque issue in the Creed, which nobody outside the rarefied academic atmosphere of theologians then, or even now, understood, or even really cared, the Protestant theology of Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others was something that the average parishioner could relate to. . On the other hand, the Protestant theology of Luther, Calvin, Knox, and others was something that the average parishioner could relate to. One of the Reformation’s principal tenets was what Luther termed the “priesthood of all believers” – a doctrine that shook the very core of the political order of Europe as it emerged from the Middle Ages. European Christendom was not quite a theocracy. Other than in the Papal States and a few independent bishoprics, mainly in Germany, the Pope and the rest of the hierarchy did not actually rule. But in nearly all cases, rulers looked to the church to provide them with legitimacy. The Divine Right of Kings meant, among other things, Church and state were unified. All too often, this unity was used as a tool of oppression. Ayn Rand termed this phenomenon as the alliance of Attila and the Witch Doctor (see her essay in For the New Intellectual), and described its contours and effects as existed in nearly all pre-modern societies.

The Reformation divided Europe into Protestant and Catholic camps, and a number of bloody religious wars ensued. Some of these were internal conflicts, like within the Holy Roman Empire (which actually, in Voltaire’s words, was none of those), France, and Britain. In Spain, Protestantism, along with Judaism and Islam, was ruthlessly suppressed, and its adherents were driven out of the country or killed, usually by being burned alive. Spain took up the cause of political Catholicism, and one of its principal aims was to return errant England to the ancient Faith. A real threat to the English nation, it was ultimately thwarted by the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588.

In the meantime, Spain had conquered and colonized the more or less southern half of the Western Hemisphere. The character of the colonization was primarily extractive, few outside the aristocracy and military came as settlers to make a permanent home. Not many entire families of what we might call the middle class, such as the English Mayflower emigrants, came to start subsistence farms and supporting villages and towns. The Spanish crown continued to rule through an appointed viceroy. Governance was centralized and authoritarian. The transplanted aristocracy – creoles, or criollos – justified their colonization as bringing Christ to the heathen. They accomplished this through the mission system which, though generally benevolent, was used as a vehicle for acquiring the labor necessary for silver mining as well as the haciendas, analogous to the Southern plantations, but even more akin to feudal fiefs. Peonage, not slavery, was the labor system in New Spain. The Catholic use of images and ritual worship was not unfamiliar to the indigenous people, and facilitated conversion. The missionaries taught Christianity and maintained Spanish presence throughout the Viceroyalty of New Spain, which became independent Mexico in the early 1820s, and included Texas. Side note: The first insurgency in the Mexican struggle for independence from Spain in 1810 was led by Catholic priest Miguel Hidalgo, known in Mexico as the Father of the Nation. Hidalgo was excommunicated as a heretic by the Church, and was executed by a firing squad, for his revolutionary activities.

England, having settled its religious conflict in favor of Protestant theology, but retaining some of the hierarchical structure and ritual of the Roman Church, came late to the colonization of the Americas. As it turned out, the British colonists were mainly Protestants seeking freedom from the established Church of England, who came to set up autonomous, self-reliant colonies. The British colonies were devoid of centralization, and for more than a century and a half, the British government pretty much left the North American colonists to themselves. When it began to take a more proactive role, it provoked the Revolution. While most of the English settlers in the early colonial days were from the landed gentry and commercial classes, in the early 18th Century, a wave of immigration from the Presbyterian north English borderlands and Ulster in Northern Ireland – the “Scots-Irish” – arrived to settle in the back country and frontier lands. (See David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (1989)). This group of people had a particularly virulent contempt for authority, whether secular or religious, and maintained a simple religious faith based on a literal Bible. Their heritage was one fearful of Catholicism, and regarded its hierarchy – the “priesthood” – as an oppressive oligarchy. That fear was not without basis, and was kept alive by the lore of English Queen “Bloody” Mary, the French St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, and the Spanish Inquisition. The Scots-Irish heritage was particularly strong in Tennessee and the rest of the Trans-Appalachian South, which is whence a good many, if not most, of the early English speaking settlers came to Texas.

This set up what Samuel Huntington has termed a fault line between civilizations (See The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of the World Order (1996)). Huntington’s thesis is that a civilization is defined primarily by its religion and language, and the other cultural aspects of the civilization flow from those two aspects. English speaking Protestants establishing a colony in the lands governs by Spanish Catholics was fraught with consequences potentially dire.

The Anglo-Texans could have lived under the Mexican Constitution of 1824, which set up a federal system much like the United States and left a great deal autonomy with the states, such as Coahuila y Texas. That constitution was abrogated in 1835 and the federal system was replaced by a centralized government from Mexico City. The resistance to the new system began as a demand by both Anglo Texans and Tejanos for the restoration of the constitution. Recall that the flag flown over the Alamo was the Mexican red, white, and green tricolor with “1824″ in the center. The determination of Santa Anna to crush this resistance precipitated the movement for complete independence for Texas.

Thus, the “priesthood” referred to in the Texas Declaration of Independence was the church hierarchy of theocratic Mexico, which the Anglo Texans feared would deprive them of the freedom to live as Protestant Christians in their new homeland, to which they had been invited. It does not appear to have been a general denunciation of Catholicism as a theological institution of religious faith, but as a political one, which had been in service of oppressive regimes in Spain, and then, Mexico.

For more reading on this topic, you might consider T. R. Fehrenbach, Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans (various editions), especially chapters in Part II; Fehrenbach, Fire and Blood: A History of Mexico (1993).

Rating U. S. Presidents is always fraught with difficulties. Any person evaluating a President is invariably going to bring their biases and point of view to the process. A President who pursues an agenda believed to be “conservative” is never going to be rated very high by and evaluator who has a “liberal” bias, and vice versa. Most of the 43 men who have served in the office have been mediocre. The few who have risen above or below mediocrity have done so in the face of some kind of crisis, or the process of a sea-change in the social, cultural, or economic fabric of the nation. The only meaningful way to evaluate a President is to consider his objectives and handling of crises, and evaluate the degree of success or failure in that regard.

Historically, the most severe crisis United States has faced was the attempted dissolution which precipitated the Civil War. President Abraham Lincoln was totally successful in preventing the political dissolution by force of arms. He incidentally ended chattel slavery, and saved free-market capitalism as the Nation’s economic system. To my mind, this qualifies him unquestionably as our greatest President. George Washington faced a less dramatic, although not any less critical, situation in shepherding a brand-new government, the only one of its kind that had ever been tried in the world, through its formative years. In doing so Washington set critical precedents in the constitutionally unstated powers and means of action for not only the presidency, but the entire executive department, and to a large degree the role of Congress. He has to be number two.

James K. Polk faced two crises, and dealt with them not only successfully, but in the way he intended to, and with the results intended. The first was the boundary dispute with Great Britain with regard to the Oregon territory. This was solved by diplomacy, although not without some saber rattling, in a manner advantageous to the United States. The other was the acquisition of nearly a third of the present-day United States from Mexico, and the confirmation of the boundary between Texas and Mexico. The war with Mexico that acquired the territory and settle the dispute was not without risks, or criticism, both then up until even now. But there’s no question Polk was effective, and what he accomplished was of long-term benefit to the Nation. Polk is number three.

The next most effective president was Andrew Jackson. He was the first president that could possibly lay claim to status as a lowercase “d” democrat, or, if you will populist. He was also the most successful of our Presidents who was a high-ranking military commander. He set out to destroy the Second Bank of the United States, as he viewed it to be an instrument of economic oppression of farmers and small businessmen, especially those in the South and West, and did so. He also dealt firmly and effectively with the Nullification Crisis precipitated by South Carolina’s attempt to abrogate the tariff within its borders, principally the Port of Charleston. He also removed the Indians remaining in Georgia, and parts of North Carolina and Tennessee the West. The most lasting accomplishment of Jackson’s, though, was the Democratic Party, which persists as a dominant political force to this very day. These are Jackson the status of number four.

I rate Franklin D Roosevelt somewhat lower than most other raters. He was effective during his first two terms in getting his way with Congress, but the main crisis he was elected to solve was not accomplished by those measures. They did, however, succeed in changing the role of the federal government in its day-to-day presence in ordinary Americans’ lives. Roosevelt’s main contribution was his leadership role in World War II. His pragmatic partnership with the Imperial Great Britain, and the totalitarian Soviet Union, effectively doomed Hitler’s Nazis and Japan’s militarists to the “dustbin of history”. His death, early into an unprecedented fourth term, perhaps saved his historical legacy, as once the war ended, everything else seemed to go wrong, at least for a while. Nevertheless, FDR is number five.

Number six and seven, not necessarily in that order, are Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. Number eight is Thomas Jefferson. Prior to 1945, I can think of no others. Since FDR, I hesitate to rate any of the Presidents. Their terms in power are too close to the present day and, I believe the historical consensus has not yet jelled. And anyway, foreign affairs, constitutionally and practically the primary leadership role of the President, has been one long crisis since the end of World War II. Every president from Harry Truman to Barack Obama has had to face one or more serious eruptions. Some have fared better than others in that regard. Most have competently handle the situations, with perhaps one notable exception. As for the present occupant of the White House, the jury is still out in any regard.

From the NCPA December 7, 2010 post

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) just announced that 59.1 million Americans went without health insurance for at least part of this year — an all-time high. The CDC estimate comes on the heels of a report from the Census Bureau that arrived at a similar conclusion. Supporters of ObamaCare have seized on these findings to make their case for the law to an increasingly skeptical American public, says Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. [See observation #1]

“The data gathered by the CDC survey more closely approximate “the number of people who were uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year.”

“The Census and CDC figures also fail to account for the millions of uninsured who are eligible for existing government insurance programs but haven’t signed up — roughly one in four Americans without coverage qualify for government-provided care. [See observation #2]

“Many other uninsured Americans voluntarily go without insurance — some 10.6 million people with household incomes of more than $75,000 lack coverage. [see observation #3]

“Even if the uninsured problem is exaggerated, won’t ObamaCare help the country achieve universal coverage?

“Sadly, the trillion-dollar answer is no. The new law, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will still leave 23 million Americans without coverage by 2019.

“That’s because ObamaCare does nothing to address the fundamental problem with health care in the United States — our employer-based health insurance system, says Pipes. [see observation #4]

“The new law actually strengthens the link between employment and insurance. In fact, by requiring plans to offer expensive benefits that most people don’t need, ObamaCare makes it even more difficult for individuals who can’t get coverage through work to find affordable insurance. [ditto]

“‘If Americans — rather than their employers — owned their insurance policies, then they could take them from job to job and remain insured if they lost their jobs,’ says Pipes.” [ditto]

Source: Sally C. Pipes, “Reform Fails To Fix Uninsured Problem,” Investor’s Business Daily, November 24, 2010.

My emphasis added.

For text:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/554787/201011241823/Reform-Fails-To-Fix-Uninsured-Problem.aspx

My observations:

#1 To call the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act “ObamaCare” might be a bit unfair. It is really the “Insurance Industry Subsidy and Protection Act of 2010” given that the mandated coverage works to the industry’s benefit. They have already stated top raiser their rates. Want to see some really huge executive bonuses? Stay tuned.

#2 Here in Dallas County, those who do not have insurance or are otherwise unable to pay, do not go without medical care. Parkland Hospital provides excellent care to Dallas County residents (even illegals!) for reduced or even no cost. This means the clinics, not just the emergency room. Of course, there can be a long wait for non urgent cases. Whaddya expect for free?

#3 Insurance is supposed to be a mechanism for sharing risk. If one has the means to deal with the risk themselves they do not need insurance. Many go that route, and they should be free to do so if they wish.

#4 The main fallacy in the system has been giving an employer a tax break for providing health insurance, and now mandating that they do. It used to be called “hospitalization” because one had to have a medical condition serious enough to require hospital care. It gradually became comprehensive third-party payment for all kinds of medical care and prescription drugs. It has come to the point that consumers of medical care of all stripes look upon it as an entitlement, rather than a choice or responsibility to secure the means to finance medical care.

Cheers!

Those of you who live in Dallas or visit frequently should be aware of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail system that was inaugurated in 1996. It has not really changed our automobile culture here, but it is a convenient alternative for urban transportation for some. On 12/6/2010, a new line – the longest – opened.

Here are news briefs (from the Dallas Morning News 12/6-7/2010.

The first day of service on DART’s new Green Line has begun amid much excitement, as transit officials welcome riders to the 28-mile route.

The $1.8 billion light-rail addition runs from southeastern Dallas, northwest through downtown and up to Carrollton.

Some riders reported via Twitter this morning that big crowds were boarding the southbound trains, though the northbound trains are largely empty.

Passengers on the Blue and Red lines, however, reported longer than typical waits at stations north of downtown, reflecting DART’s decision to reduce frequency on all trains during rush hour to save money and reduce the transit jam through the busy downtown transit mall.

Only a handful of folks exited at Parkland Station.

Several observations

(1) My experience in London and continental European cities as well as in Washington, Chicago, and Boston informs me that frequency of service is the determinative factor to widespread usage of metro rail transportation. DART needs to bite the bullet and INCREASE instead of decrease the frequency to “save money” because it won’t. I understand that congestion on the downtown traffic mall is a factor, but is one that should be rectified by another line through the central city without delay.

(2) It is no surprise that commuters from the more affluent northern suburbs are more apt to use rail than those from the lower income/poor areas south. Driving an automobile of almost any kind provides a modicum of status, which lower-middle class and poor persons crave. Using public transportation is seen by the lower classes as confirming their lack thereof, while upper middle class persons see it as a practical alternative (they have other status hang-ups). Few exit at Parkland Hospital for this reason. I’ll bet those who do are not patients, but rather work there. Might even include one or more docs.

(3) My libertarianism does not preclude support for public facilities such as transit. I think Henry Clay had it right 200 years ago with his American System (Clay also founded the Whig Party, who were the proto-Republicans.) For 60+ years, however, our government has subsidized the auto and ancillary industries by providing free (at the point of use) roads highways, while burdening mas transit – which means rail – beyond all hope of making it an attractive investment for private enterprise.

I am all for food safety, but the primary effect of the latest Congressional attempt to disprove King Canute is another layer of bureaucratic nonsense that will make food more expensive, and put more Americans out of work, except, of course, for federal employees, who are already the highest paid non-productive drones in the world. This so called food safety act is a typical over-reaction to isolated incidents. When the left-wing realize that a perfect world is unattainable, and probably not much fun? Never, of course.

Here in Dallas, the Trinity River, which normally has the width and depth of a creek, has been confined by levees through the central city since the 1930s. Prior to their being built, floods periodically inundated the downtown area – a result of spring rains upriver. Since, however, the worst river crests never made it more than halfway up the levees, and there has been no under-seepage. New FEMA regulation, however, are requiring the city/state to upgrade the levee, or will designate the areas proximate as a flood plain and require homes and businesses there to carry expensive flood insurance. The area is populated by small businesses and modest homes that such requirements could have a financially devastating impact on. Either way, more money will be spent in another Quixotic scheme to attain a risk-free society.