Blog 4 History

What was the Founder’s true understanding of “Natural Law” and how did it influence the creation of the American Constitution? Was it even a significant factor? Still today the influence of Natural Law on the Founders is downplayed or even ignored. Some even deny its importance in the development and creation of our Republic. John Hart Ely stated years ago that Natural Law and natural rights beliefs were not generally acknowledged during the 1780s and that it “probably was not even the majority view among [the] ‘framers’…” This essay will show how Natural Law informed and guided the Founders as they declared their Independence and then solidified their republic with a new constitution during 1787 to 1789.

Additionally, I will show how religion and Natural Law went hand and hand in the development of the constitution. How both helped to shape the document’s structure and power, but also how the Founder’s believed that the main hope for a successful republic was in the hands of the people. That for the American Republic to survive and the constitution to succeed both relied on a virtuous people who were well educated and spiritual.

Finally, I will demonstrate how the constitution was not designed to separate religion from the state, but to protect religion from the state. Though a simple and seemingly obvious statement, today it seems befuddled and confused. The Founders never intended to protect its citizens from exposure to religious symbols, ceremonies, or practice. They would have encouraged Christian practices and teaching.

When the new constitution was presented to the American people immediately some Founders debated whether or not it violated the spirit of the American Revolution. Some feared the power of the executive branch could become a kind of king and “tyranny” would result. The Vice President’s role in the Senate was objected to as well. A list of grievances was given by Elbridge Gerry during one debate in which he listed the ways the Constitution threatened the people:

“1. The duration and reeligibility of the Senate. 2. The power of the House of Representatives to conceal their journals [transparency]. 3. The power of the Congress over the places of election. 4. The unlimited power of congress over their own compensations…” Gerry stated that he could settle those issues if it weren’t for the additional issues of the Congresses seemingly unlimited power per the “necessary and proper” clause (as we call it.) George Mason stood and sounded the loudest objection when he declared, “There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States… the people [are not] secure even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law.”

Which, everyone in the House chamber knew, had everything to do with Natural Law and whether or not the Constitution would infringe on those inalienable rights. No one at the time would have denied the status of Natural Law and its influence in American Constitutionalism. Anti-Federalist Thomas B. Wait wrote to his Federalist friend, George Thatcher, “For God’s sake let us not deny self-evident propositions,” and later, “[n]o people under Heaven are so well acquainted with the natural rights of mankind, with the rights that ever ought to be reserved in all civil compacts, as are the people of America.”

But what is Natural Law as the Founders understood it? According to some Constitutional scholars the origins of Natural Law starts with the teachings and writing of Marcus Tullius Cicero. Cicero was the first important philosopher to diverge from Plato and Aristotle and theorize about a “future society based on Natural Law.” Cicero defined Natural Law as an “agreement with nature… [an] eternal and unchangeable law…for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God…” For Cicero, the central force that holds society together was the love of God. Natural Law flowed from spiritual understandings. His teachings and writings are more Christian than Platonic. Cicero, like the Founders, believed that in order for Natural Law to flourish it required that society be “highly moral and virtuous.”

Benjamin Franklin wrote that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Thomas Jefferson on numerous occasions spoke of his countrymen’s “natural rights.” And as we will see, his Declaration of Independence was first and foremost an expression of Natural Law. The combination of Natural Law with the belief that virtue and Christianity were needed to maintain the proper state of nature and hence Natural Rights. This understanding had a central influence on the Declaration of Independence and the constitution.

Both Federalist and Anti-Federalists believed in Natural Law, but where they differed was how the constitution interacted with those principles. For the Anti-Federalists the threat of a large central government infringing on those “natural rights” made them fear the power of government as outlined in the new constitution proposed in 1789. It wasn’t that they were non-believers in Natural Law that was the issue. Benjamin Rush noted that American’s natural rights could only be superseded with “their own consent, or from tyranny” and that the constitution “neither implies the former, nor creates an avenue to the latter.” Each side took the stance that they stood for natural rights as each side understood the importance to reflect those principles. What was at stake was whether or not Natural Law would be impacted by the new government. Anti-Federalist George Mason took part in 1776 in writing an 18-page declaration of independence for Virginia and in it they were clear as to the role of natural rights. A Mason led committee wrote that, “all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.”

When looking at the intellectual origin of the American Independence movement, we can start with Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and other enlightened political thinkers and from there trace the origins of Natural Law. However, perhaps the best starting point for our purposes here is Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Paine’s pamphlet was the intellectual turning point for Independence. In a very clear and straight forward presentation Paine provided an emotional context for Americans and the revolution and did so by drawing from Natural Law: “I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature.” It took Paine’s plain talk about the natural order of things and the obvious truth that government was not the source of individual rights, and together his words and the philosophy of Natural Law greatly impacted Americans and rallied support for the cause.

According to Gordon S. Wood, the “Revolution became a test of the Americans’ capacity for virtue.” It was one thing to claim natural rights and quite another to put it in place in the form of a government. Their sense of egalitarianism, they believed, took a familiar shape, though one from a long time ago. Americans consistently harkened back to classical times in public speeches and printed pamphlets. (James Warren wore a white toga during a speech shortly after the Boston Massacre.) John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in their letters and correspondences spoke of their “Ciceronian moment” that they hoped to achieve. The linkage between republicanism and Natural Law, to the Founders, was the understanding that virtue would be tested and that only a virtuous people could emerge from the Revolution with true independence. It was not wealth or bloodlines that determined leadership, but the qualities of a gentleman and his virtue. This would be central to American republicanism.

But what about the constitutional making process, do we see signs of Natural Law’s (natural rights) influence? Some recent scholars have denied Natural Law’s influence (such as Michael Perry) by pointing out that nothing in the constitution or Bill of Rights mentions natural rights or Natural Law. So if it was paramount to the constitution, than “a broadly accepted natural law philosophy surely would have found a place within [the Constitution], presumably in the Bill of Rights.” Yet some argue it is nowhere to be found or even succinctly expressed in the document.

First, let’s address what a constitution entails: 1) It establishes the form of government a state will use; 2) it outlines the powers of that government. The emphasis for us is on the second purpose of a constitution: power. Where does it come from and what rights do citizens have under that power?

As noted, the best place to start is the American Revolution or the dawn of it. During the Stamp Act Crisis several state legislatures put together resolutions outlining their rights and objections. One in particular is worth noting: “Resolutions of the house of Representatives of Massachusetts”, October 29, 1765. It starts off with four resolutions, and all are straight from Natural Law principles:

“1. Resolved, That there are certain essential Rights of the British Constitution of government which are founded in the Law of God and Nature, and are common Rights of Mankind – Therefore

2. Resolved, That the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights.

3. Resolved, That no man can justly take the property of another without his consent; and that upon this original principle, the right of representation in the same body which exercises the power of making laws for levying taxes, which is one of the main pillars of the British Constitution, is evidently founded.

4. Resolved, That this inherent right, together with all other essential rights, liberties, privileges, and immunities of the people of Great Britain, have been fully confirmed to them by Magna Charta, and by former and by later acts of Parliament.”

The very first resolution established the supremacy of Natural Law and God’s place as the deliverer of those natural rights. The second resolution stated that Natural Law cannot be denied to the people. The third resolution established property rights, something that the Founders believed was central to liberty, republicanism, and Natural Law. Finally, the fourth resolution established the chain of law that established natural rights.

In the same year, Pennsylvania produced a “Declaration of Rights” and it they declared that “all men are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent and inalienable rights…” Echoing the Declaration of Independence, they claimed that Natural Law assured one and all the access to “life and liberty” and the “pursuing and obtaining of happiness.”

As historian Jack N. Rakove has noted, the rights and confirmations assumed by Americans during the pre-Revolutionary period had their origins “in the authority of God or the law of nature.” But of course the most obvious document to examine is the Declaration of Independence. In Thomas Jefferson’s original draft he declared that he and his fellow countrymen enjoyed “inherent and inalienable rights” that did not originate with the Monarchy or any government for that matter. Though the words were changed somewhat to “certain inalienable rights,” it is clear the Founders were as a whole in agreement with idea of Natural Law.

Therefore, the first principle of our Constitution is Natural Law. For example, if we look at some of the major ideas and concepts of the American Constitution we see Natural Law’s influence abound:

“The concept of INALIENABLE RIGHTS …LIMITED GOVERNMENT…SEPERATION OF POWERS…CHECKS AND BALANCES… SELD PRESERVATION… is based on Natural Law”

The Constitution did not establish rights; it simply declared those that were “inalienable” and “self-evident” based on the Founder’s understanding of Natural Law. The power of the government was limited because it was not all powerful and it received its power from the people, popular sovereignty which was established under the beliefs of Natural Law.
However, all is not well with the constitution as the Founders knew it. Because only a handful of rights are outlined in the document and because of its vagueness and brevity, we have seen the judiciary have to determine if there was more (rights) to the Founder’s original declaration of rights? For example, though religion was clearly discussed in the constitution, the nature of those words is still contested today.

Though the Bill of Rights was seen by some at the time as an unneeded document, court rulings since its inception have rendered it one of the more important and controversial parts of our Constitution. With recent disputes over school prayer, Christmas celebrations, and debates on the “Christianity” of our nation, it seems prudent to examine, briefly, the Founder’s relationship with religion and what they saw as its role in society and specifically how it was an important element in Natural Law.
As noted earlier, virtue and morality were seen as important traits for any public to exercise a long lasting democratic and free republic form of government. So how did the Founders best believe a society could develop those traits? In 1787, the same year as the Constitutional Convention, the Congress passed what was called the Northwest Ordinance. Though a document that meant to establish sovereignty for the United States in the West, it also established several other things of note, in particular, Article III of the document, which reads in part:

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Religious studies were established by the government as a necessity for proper education, which came directly from Natural Law doctrine and the belief that a virtuous and religious population was required to maintain an egalitarian republic. When Thomas Jefferson wrote his “Bill for Establishing Elementary Schools in Virginia,” he declared that “No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination.” Notice he did not say religion could not be practiced in school, only that it was done correctly. Jefferson was never against the promotion of religion, he wanted no religion or worshiper to be persecuted and for all religions to be protected. Jefferson’s thoughts on religion are important if we are to understand the true belief and place of religion in early American government and what the Founders intended for the role of religion in American society.

In June of 1776 Thomas Jefferson finished his third draft of a proposed constitution for Virginia, and in it he wrote:

“All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.”

Clearly Jefferson wanted to protect one’s right to worship as they pleased and not be forced to worship. By 1779 Jefferson’s thinking on religion had expanded to protect not just one’s right to worship, but to express that belief. “[A]ll men shall be free to profess,” Jefferson wrote, “and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.” He went on to declare their right to assemble and that these and other rights were “natural rights of mankind” and that an infringement on them was “an infringement on natural right.”

The clearest way to protect an individual’s right to worship was to make sure government could never infringe on that right. As we know, Natural Law depended on a virtuous and moral society and to protect the religious practices of Americans and the Founders made sure to be very clear on the government’s role in religion: it was hands off. In August, 1789, in the United States House of Representatives, a list of proposed Amendments to the Constitution was brought to the floor and in it was Article III, stating, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.”

During his visit to America in 1831/32, Alexis de Tocqueville was often struck by American’s sense of not just freedom, republicanism and law, but also religion and how it intertwined with almost every fabric of American society.

“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren, traditionary faith which seems to vegetate rather than live in the soul.”

Tocqueville mentioned American’s “lasting” faith and the spirit with which it lived in the country. He also found that in schools the teaching of religion took precedent and was important. While in New England he wrote, “every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidence of his religion,” along with the “history of his country.” Religion, education and government teaching went hand and hand with educating a people in a republic.

The clear intent of the Founders was to protect religion, not to protect its citizens from the expression or practice of religion. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and architect of the Bill of Rights, wrote that “There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion.” No where do they mention that schools, government ceremonies, or any kind of public should be free of religious expression. The argument today for some becomes an ideological affair as they argue that there is a state sponsorship of religion if there is any kind of religious ceremony present in government agencies. However, nowhere does it say in the Constitution that religion and country shall be divided.

The idea of “separation of church and state” has been misconstrued. None other than Thomas Jefferson wrote that there must be “a wall of separation between church and state.” This and other writings by some Founders has been used, it seems, to justify the complete removal of religion from society. Slowly, religion has been completely removed from the classroom: Board of Education v. Allen (1968), established secular textbooks; Meek v. Pittenger (1975), stopped government funding of religious schools. Worst of all, using freedom of religion and the separation of church and state to allow students to not have to salute this country’s flag was established in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), and most importantly, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) where the court ruled quoting Jefferson’s “a wall of separation.” However, it is interesting to note that Virginia house representative Thomas Jefferson himself helped to write a bill that would have required a day of fasting and prayer. So did Jefferson mean that religion and state should be divided? Yes and no.

The concept of separation of church and state was not intended by Jefferson and the Founders to be used as a political and social tool to remove religion from places such as schools or government ceremonies. The idea of a “wall” was intended on a vertical level of constitutionalism, on the Federal level, and the establishing of a national religion. Both Jefferson and Madison wrote of religion’s proper place in society and even wanted states to be able to protect religious practices and ceremonies. For example, in his second inaugural address, Jefferson wrote:

“In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state or church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”

The concern was if the federal government attempted to sponsor a religion that it might insight civil strife and disrupt the virtue of the people. Therefore, they left it to the states to decide. Perhaps most revealing of all is part of a letter written by Jefferson where he revealed his satisfaction concerning the use of a court house for religious practices:

“In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The court-house is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each.”

Even Jefferson, a man of questionable religious beliefs, supported time and again the need for religion in society, its open expression and practice, and was indeed supportive of fair religious practices, even when involving the role of government property.

In 1789 at President George Washington’s inauguration his Excellency finished by stating, “So help me God,” followed by Robert R. Livingston’s conclusion, “It is done, long live George Washington, President of the United States.” Yet today Liberal Scholars have begun attacking the legitimacy of this utterance (in a continuation of their attack on Natural Law) even calling it a “myth” that should be removed from American Historical memory. Historian Peter R. Henriques of George Mason University declared recently, “There is absolutely no extant contemporary evidence that President Washington altered the language of the oath as laid down in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Henriques’ best argument is that Washington would never have drifted from the exact text. However, an equally engaging case could be made that as a Founding Father, a Christian, and most importantly a product of 18th Century America, Washington would have felt very comfortable in adding the words, “So Help Me God” to the oath. The fact of the matter is, we shall never know and any speculation otherwise to this accepted event of history, is just that.

On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to approve the United States Constitution and it was thus ratified. Interestingly enough, those fifty-five writers of the Constitution consisted of: twenty-six Episcopalians, eleven Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Dutch Reformed, two Lutherans, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, two Quakers and one supposed Deist –– Benjamin Franklin, who interestingly enough, called for prayer during the Constitutional Convention seven days later on June 28, stating, “I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning.”

To separate church and state in 1789 at the levels we have today would have been a violation of the principles of Natural Law and would have destroyed, in the eyes of the Founders, the social fabric needed to maintain a virtuous and moral populace and therefore would have doomed their republic. The idea that there should be a “wall” separating church and state was never intended to take on the life it has today and one that has allowed for judges to legislate from the bench in an attempt to remove religion completely from American society and government.

In conclusion, the American Revolution took hold during a time of heightened sensibility to the order of Natural Law and, of course, republicanism. It is clear that not just the Founders, but many Americans, understood their rights in regard to a higher principle of Natural Law. The Declaration of Independence, the most important expression of the Revolution, was in step with the major tenants of Natural Law as outlined by Cicero. Our rights do not come from government, they are not something that is established, they are part of a natural order of things with God being the giver of all, according to the Founders.

The Constitutional Convention was the finalization of the Revolution and an event that solidified Natural Law’s predominance in American republicanism. The Constitution was an expression of the beliefs of most Americans, whether Federalist or anti-Federalist. Its major influence can be traced through many veins but all lead at some point to Natural Law.

Benjamin Franklin wrote that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” The virtue of men was essential to maintain natural rights and the republic. The role of religion in American history is not debatable and the essence of our founding undeniable. From the early Puritan vision of a “House on upon a Hill” to the founding of the world’s first constitutional republic, Natural Law and religion were essential.

[footnotes have been removed]

One of the leaders in Teaching for Social Justice is William Ayers, who is a Distinguished Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Ayers was also a member of the Weather Underground in the 1960s/70s, who participated in acts of terrorism including planting a bomb in the Pentagon.

In the book Teaching for Social Justice: A Democracy and Education Reader (New Press, Spring 1998), which I bought and read, Ayers and other teachers and professors outline Best Practice methods for teaching social justice. This would also be a good read for a criminal justice degree class. (There are also numerous books, groups, associations, and conferences today that deal with Social Justice and take their lead from Ayers and Howard Zinn.)

Here are some of the highlights:

Ayers in his “Introduction” proclaims, “The teachers [of social justice] … reject the old objectivist approach” to teaching and replace it with the values of social justice where all around us are nothing but injustices such as racism, sexism, classism, ect. Lots of “isms” which the teaching of Social Justice seem to use. All around us, according to this view and this instruction method, is inequality and oppression. As I have already pointed out here and here, their goal is not objectivity or neutrality in the classroom. They are the disciplines of Howard Zinn and believe that objectivity is irresponsible when faced with the supposed racist and oppressive society we live in. Remember, it is so bad here in the United States, in terms of injustice, that people from other countries are flocking here?

Everything, every topic, seemingly falls under the umbrella of “Teaching for Social Justice.” For example, Environmental Justice is a large part of it as well as Economic Justice, and this ultimately leads to the teaching of socialism and the redistribution of wealth, energy, and resources. William Ayers clearly states it is their goal to educate through “collective action” and for the good of the collective. All under the guise of teaching for “social justice and democracy.”

The book also talks openly about the “Progressive” origins of the movement going back to the Progressive Education Association of the 1930s. The book is filled with nuances of “collective undertaking” and social reform for the greater good. The themes of socialism and progressivism are right there, openly encouraged and acknowledged. No conspiracies, as conspiracies are “secret” designs and not out in the open. This is a movement for “change,” and one we can believe in.

Military presentation leaves many Dumbfounded.

‘When we understand that slide, we’ll have won the war,’ General Stanley McChrystal, the US and NATO force commander, remarked wryly when confronted by the sprawling spaghetti diagram in a briefing.

Read more…

The History Channel’s “America: The Story of Us,” began with a nice introduction by President Obama. Rolfe at Jamestown, the horrible conditions, and the exceptional nature of the survival of the early colonies. Then in an even more grand style, it reveals the Revolution and heroci struggles at battles such as The Battle of Yorktown. Featuring a mixture of reenactments, CGI and commentary by Americans from politics, media, business and academia the series is compelling and informative. Also, for educators, your principle can request the DVD for FREE: Click Here.

[This was a paper I wrote several years ago during my first year in Graduate School. I'm posting it as I thought it was decent, though surely flawed. Any comments appreciated!]

By the outbreak of the Civil War the importance of cavalry as a “decisive” element of modern warfare was debated both in Europe and the United States. With the development of rifled artillery and better small arms, most predicted that future cavalry units would become “mounted infantry,” or perhaps even marginalized to a kind of “special reserve” for cleaning up routed enemy infantry. So unconcerned was the North with the development of the cavalry that it refused voluntary units until after the devastating defeat at Bull Run. Clearly the South took to the development of its cavalry units far more seriously, as displayed by the success of J.E.B. Stuart and later on Nathan Bedford Forrest, and therefore gained a noted advantage during the first two or three years. Yet this did not lead to their success in the ultimate outcome of the war.

In the 18th Century brilliant tacticians such as Gustavus Adolphus and Marlborough used cavalry as an offensive weapon equal to that of heavy and light infantry. The cavalry would be arranged into large and concentrated formations “capable of launching immense charges to break or overwhelm an enemy” at the pivotal moment. However, as time went on developments in technology and tactics continued to lessen the role of cavalry in some of the great European battles. Frederick the Great’s tactics, though making use of cavalry, favored the infantry to such a degree that cavalry was “reduced to a supporting arm,” and no longer was the key offensive weapon that it once was. So much so was the reduction in the importance of cavalry units that during the Napoleonic wars most armies had “comparatively” few cavalry to that of Napoleon. And clearly Napoleon’s use of massed cavalry charges no doubt peeked the imagination of Southern and Northern American horseman alike. However, his cavalry would ultimately fail him at Waterloo and hence fan the fire of debate as to its usefulness as a main offensive weapon. By the dawn of 1860 the role of cavalry in modern warfare was anything but conclusive.

Dating back to Hannibal’s victory at Cannae (216 B.C.) the turning or flanking movement, such as the one Hannibal used, became the desired objective of most military commanders. The use of cavalry was for a long time essential for such a movement. But as infantry developed new weapons and tactics, the use of cavalry as a shock element faded so much so that during the Civil War both Federal and Confederate military commanders dismissed the idea of using cavalry as a decisive battlefield tactical option. J.E.B. Stuart’s timely appearance at Bull Run aside, there are very few instances of cavalry, acting as a cavalry shock unit, and therefore playing any kind of decisive role in battle. In the war’s last significant conflict, Maj. Gen. Robert E. Lee’s ultimate demise can be credited with the ability of Federal cavalry units to sprint to a location, dismount and act as infantry. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to show how cavalry as a tactical element in battle failed to play a decisive role in outcome of the Civil War.

First we must understand that in order for us to recognize a true “cavalry” tactic it must act as such, fighting on their horses in some tactical manner or otherwise the horse becomes simply a vehicle for transportation. At best then, these units should be described as “mobile” infantry with the key element being their infantry fighting tactics as opposed to traditional cavalry tactics. In the traditional sense, cavalry were shock units that either rolled up enemy infantry from the flanks, out-dueled oppositional cavalry and then dispersed enemy infantry, or slammed into unprotected infantry causing mass panic, retreat, and usually a rout. In all such tactical events, the key element was speed and the use of the mounted cavalrymen wielding his saber was crucial. In the American Civil War, we simply do not see such events taking place in most major battles.

Usually the only time cavalry units, on either side, played any kind of significant role in the outcome of a major battle were when they failed in their role as the “eyes and ears” of the army, not as attacking or flanking elements, but instead as reconnaissance and information gathering devices. Lee bemoaned the absence of Stuart at Gettysburg just as Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant would of Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan at North Anna River.

During the action at Pea Ridge, one of the first significant battles of the war, the cavalry was a fairly important element in the battle, though its use was uneven and its involvement did not play a significant role in the outcome as Confederate cavalry clearly outfought its counterpart, yet lost the battle.

One Federal colonel reported the nature of the fighting that day: “They [cavalry] skirmished constantly, and frequently dismounted to fight on foot. Some of the men whose horses were disabled joined the infantry and fought out the battles with them.” The 3rd Iowa Cavalry, also fighting it out at Pea Ridge, supporting infantry and artillery was still mounted when it advanced down a wooded road only to be ambushed and receive a “deadly” fire from a “partly concealed” infantry force that resulted in a “large number” of casualties and their retreat, leaving both man and beast littered across the field. Sometime later, the First Missouri Cavalry was able to outduel the 3rd Iowa Cavalry and even take the guns and destroy them.

One of the largest and most lively cavalry attacks of the entire Civil War occurred during the Battle of Pea Ridge. In a large prairie along Ford Road near Fosters Farm and Sturdy Farm some 3,000 Confederate cavalry charged in mass across a wide field and smashed into Federal cavalry guarding artillery. Here we see a successful shock tactic use to perfection. According to witnesses, the Rebel cavalry swarmed down upon them (the attacked took place on a downward slope) with the most hideous shrieks and hollers and in hand to hand combat forced the Federal’s to flee the field. However, though the events on that day caused some who witnessed them to hearken back to Napoleon’s heady cavalry charges, historians have noted that the charge near Foster’s Farm was “one of the last Napoleonic cavalry charges on American soil.” The elements required for such an event to take place again: large numbers of massed cavalry, wide open and unbroken fields, and the absence of enfiladed artillery, would rarely materialize.

A perfect example of the failure of cavalry shock tactics against infantry and the negating effect of terrain can be seen early on in the Civil War at the Battle of Shiloh, or Pittsburg Landing. Towards the end of a long day of fighting, after being nearly rolled up to the docks of the Tennessee River by Confederate infantry, the colonel of the 77th Pennsylvania Infantry was ordered by Lieut. Gen. William T. Sherman to protect what was left of Sherman’s left flank. They moved out over an open terrain where they received “heavy” fire from artillery and infantry. While in place, still in the open field, they were suddenly attacked by a (unconfirmed size) group of Tennessee cavalry. Twice the Tennesseans charged, but both times “repulsed with heavy loss.” The Confederates were routed and their colonel captured.

Consistently when cavalry charged infantry the results were not good. In October of 1862 a Confederate cavalry brigade attacked the rear guard of Brig. Gen. A.A. Humphrey’s division only to be turned back after the infantry opened fire and emptied “many saddles.” Near Hills Plantation in Arkansas, a column of 350 Federal Infantry would hold off and ultimately (with the help of a small Indiana cavalry regiment) defeat a large group (2,000) of Texas Rangers. Another prime example of the superiority of infantry fire and tactics against mounted cavalry took place in 1862 in Arkansas. Col. Charles L. Harris of the 11th Wisconsin and his column were a part of Maj. Gen. Samuel R. Curtis’s Army of Southwest as it desperately tried to reach Helena, Ark., and fresh supplies. While on reconnaissance, Harris ran into the Texas Rangers in what was described as an ambush only it would be the Texans who were mauled and fled the battlefield. After taking an initial volley from the Rangers Harris ordered his men to return fire. The opening volley by the Confederates was for the most part harmless as most of them were armed with poor weapons such as shotguns and squirrel hunting rifles. Sensing the need to attack, the Texans charged the tiny ban, numerous times, but to their amazement they were “repulsed at the point of the bayonet” recorded army surgeon who was present during the battle. Several times during the fight the Rangers attempted to blast into the infantry, and every time they met with consistent and accurate fire that unseated many. Those that reached the line were greeted with bayonets. When the battle was over and the Texans fled the field, over 150 of their dead littered the battlefield.

When cavalry units squared off against each other, it was the dismounted units that consistently repulsed mounted cavalry attacks. Col. Edward Hatch of the 2nd Iowa Cavalry ordered his men to dismount and lie “flat upon the ground” as Confederate cavalry charged their position trying to overtake Federal artillery. After an effective volley the charge was repulsed. Still, the Confederate cavalry charged again, and for a second time, the charge was turned back by a direct and accurate fire.

Also, surprisingly, when attempting to out-flank the enemy, cavalry often dismounted to do so. Col. Cyrus L. Dunham of the 50th Indiana Infantry was in a tough spot. His brigade was bloodied, their ammunition was low, and they were exhausted from continuous fighting. While Dunham organized his defense (as it attempted to protect Federal artillery), they were “suddenly and furiously attacked… by a heavy dismounted [cavalry] force which had, under the cover of the hills and woods beyond, turned our right flank.” Thinking fast he ordered a bayonet charge that held off the dismounted cavalry force. At this same moment, another group of Confederates came at them from another direction, this time a smaller but mounted contingent, which was also repulsed after a severe volley by Dunham’s men.
In 1864 Brig. Gen. George A. Custer and his combined force of cavalry and infantry were engaged in a wild affair near Stony Mountain, Virginia. Somewhere near the Fredericksburg Plank Road in an open field his pickets were driven in by a “large group” of enemy cavalry. Custer’s force was in good position with some of his men dismounted and hidden in the woods. They were able to repulse the enemy several times. However, during these assaults the Confederates sent dismounted cavalry around on Custer’s right in a flanking movement; once again, not relying on mounted cavalry but dismounted cavalry acting as infantry. This movement was detected and Custer sent a regiment of Michigan cavalry to stop the movement. However, this was not enough to check the advance. Custer then added artillery and dismounted cavalry and combined they were able to hold their right and eventually drive the enemy from the field.

The official records are filled with countless descriptions of small to medium sized cavalry charges that failed. However, without time for a scientific study, the results can only be described as mostly unsuccessful and some resulting in destructive results. No doubt there are some examples of successful cavalry charges and I have noted that, yet the evidence seems to clearly support show that when cavalry played key roles in battle, it was mainly acting as infantry.

This is not to say that the cavalry could not be effective. The Confederacy developed several different methods for using mounted cavalry in what historian Robert R. Mackey called “irregular warfare” tactics. Throughout the upper South guerrilla, partisan and raiding warfare for a time caused the North great trouble. John S. Mosby’s 43rd Virginia Cavalry Battalion reaped havoc in parts of northern Virginia. Not to be outdone, others such as John H. Morgan in Tennessee and Kentucky, William Quantrill in the Trans-Mississippi, and Jeff Thompson in Arkansas also produce successful results. For a time these guerrilla units threatened the stability of the Federal army, but, as Mackey notes, by 1865 they had failed due to superior Northern strategy which is why Robert E. Lee did not order his men to take to the hills as guerrilla fighters, they had already tried and failed.

By 1864 cavalry shock tactics in the Western Theater began to find some success and so much so that Maj. Gen. William Rosecrans ordered 3,000 sabers for his mounted cavalry. The shock tactic might have had a few marginal successes, maybe even a resurgence of sorts, but as one historian noted, the evidence is “fragmentary” at best. Federal cavalry was clearly outperformed by its Southern counterpart. In the Western Theater we first see real Federal success, yet in the realm of overall operations, the Confederate cavalry dominated until 1864. With the Shenandoah Expedition by Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sheridan came the arrival of truly devastating cavalry tactics. As a psychological weapon, the arrival of Federal cavalry among the citizenry of the South was greeted with terror. During Sheridan’s campaign saber charges were employed and proved effective, continuing on to September and the Battle of Winchester, where more success for shock tactics using the saber and quick strikes. Yet, what we see developing during the Shenandoah Expedition is the evolution of cavalry tactics using both mounted and dismounted, and doing so to perfection. Evidence of cavalry success never seemed to rid itself of its dismounted nature during the Civil War.

Finally, it would be deceptive to leave the impression that both Federal and Confederate commanders did not want to use grand charges in the style of Napoleon, they simply discovered early on that they often could not even consider such a tactic due to the broken landscape of most American Civil War battlefields. The large open and sweeping fields that allowed hundreds of thousands of Europeans to wage war did not and could not have happened on American soil in the 1860s.

In conclusion, the nature of the landscape, the failure of cavalry shock tactics when matched against the infantry, and the increased use of cavalry as secondary or reconnaissance and raiding parties – though very affective at times – never became important enough to play a “decisive” role in the outcome of the American Civil War.

[footnotes removed]

Temple, TX, has brought back corporal punishment to its schools after decades of progressive positive behavior tactics have utterly failed. Students were becoming more defiant and so much so that their parents are the ones who led the charge to bring back the stick to the school. I remember in the early 80s as a middle-schooler being paddled for a fight I was involved in. The Principle had the meanest looking paddle with notches carved into, scared the crap out of me. After my paddling I never fought again and made sure my behavior was appropriate. Twenty states, mostly in the South, still have corporal punishment. I wonder if there is any data on whether or not behavior in those schools is better? If this article is correct, behavior can be positively impacted by such punitive options as the paddle.

Here’s the article:

Texas city revives paddling as it takes a swat at misbehavior
By Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 16, 2010

TEMPLE, TEX. — In an era when students talk back to teachers, skip class and wear ever-more-risque clothing to school, one central Texas city has hit upon a deceptively simple solution: Bring back the paddle.
This Story.

Most school districts across the country banned paddling of students long ago. Texas sat that trend out. Nearly a quarter of the estimated 225,000 students who received corporal punishment nationwide in 2006, the latest figures available, were from the Lone Star State.

But even by Texas standards, Temple is unusual. The city, a compact railroad hub of 60,000 people, banned the practice and then revived it at the demand of parents who longed for the orderly schools of yesteryear. Without paddling, “there were no consequences for kids,” said Steve Wright, who runs a construction business and is Temple’s school board president.

Since paddling was brought back to the city’s 14 schools by a unanimous board vote in May, behavior at Temple’s single high school has changed dramatically, Wright said, even though only one student in the school system has been paddled.

“The discipline problem is much better than it’s been in years,” Wright said, something he attributed to the new punishment and to other discipline programs schools are trying. Residents of the city’s comfortable homes, most of which sport neighborly, worn chairs out front, praise the change.

To read more…

The prompt for this week’s discussion in one of my graduate classes and based on the numerous readings was: “If you had to select one defining moment, challenge, social cause, technological achievement, or political struggle that marked the start of the century what would it be and why?”

Some great discussions thus far and focused on, for example, the Spanish-American War, Progressivism, Women’s suffrage movement, Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency, ect.

I focused on 1904:

In December 1904 while addressing Congress President Teddy Roosevelt established what would become the “Roosevelt Corollary.” In this address Roosevelt declared that the United States must “exercise” its influence in the Western Hemisphere and join Europe as an “international police power,” or in other words an Imperial power. [1] Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” policy established the United States as truly a world power. The Spanish-American War of 1898, though a sweeping victory, did not establish the U.S. as a world player. It was a first step, and so it could be looked to as that defining moment.

However, I look to Roosevelt and his presidency as our ascendancy into the 20th Century. Roosevelt was our first Progressive president, an imperialist, and a visionary. His leadership expanded American influence, power, and prestige to such a degree that we became a modern imperialistic state. The Great White fleet alone by 1907 (initiated by Roosevelt by 1903), one could argue, was a unprecedented event for a nation dedicated to neutrality since its creation.

Economically, by 1904, the U.S. was becoming an industrial giant on an unprecedented scale. The mid-1890s was a depression wrecked economy, however, by 1904 the U.S. was experiencing an economic boom. The nation’s GDP double during the first decade of the century. Additionally, with the likes of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and JP Morgan, American industry was a giant. Rockefeller would become the first billionaire at this time. By 1900 the U.S. was the largest producer of steel in the world. Huge trusts had resulted in super corporations that established the U.S. as the leading industrial giant in the world. [2]

In foreign policy the early 1900s proved to be the awakening point for the U.S. as men had come to power who had their eye on growing American power and influence. Not just Roosevelt, though he was the key, however he joined John Jay,Secretary of State, Henry Cabot Lodge, influential thinkers such as Alfred T. Mahan, the Navial theorist who encouraged Roosevelt to develop a strong naval force and who probably first used the term “Middle East” in an article in the National Review about foreign policy illustrating how far the U.S. had come in international relations by 1904. Without the Great White fleet initiative and a strong navy, the U.S. was a second rate power without a visionary like Roosevelt.[3]

The recent controversy surrounding Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell when he issued a proclamation in honor of Confederate History Month that did not include a reference to slavery — an unforgivable omission — the fact that the Civil War is still a significant part of American history cannot be denied and indeed it still lives with us!

Anyway, this led me to a book I received recently The Long Shadow of the Civil War Southern Dissent and Its Legacies, By Victoria E. Bynum.

In the Introduction of the book Bynum quickly points out the focus of her book and the “three central questions” that are addressed:

1) How prevalent was support for the Union among ordinary Southerners, and how was it expressed?
2) How did Southern Unionists and freedpeople experience the Union’s victory and the emancipation of the slaves during the era of Reconstruction and beyond?
3) What were the legacies of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the South’s White Supremacists counterrevolution in regard to race, class, and gender relations and New South politics?

Which are very important questions and still very relevant. The shock waves of the Civil War are still felt today. The economic and social conditions of Black Americans was impacted by the failure of Reconstruction, the legacy of Jim Crow, and the dependency created by the White guilt welfare state of the Johnson Administration’s “Great Society” (and beyond) a tragedy that increased the number of single mother households that devastated blacks for generations and sentenced so many single mother black families to poverty.

Anyway, a great read and a solid study, and more importantly a timely one that relates to the continued reflection on the meaning of the American Civil War.

Please keep visiting the site, in the next few days I will be posting a brief essay on International Security Policy and Nuclear Proliferation from a historical perspective. Recent changes in U.S. Nuclear Policy as well as general National Security Policy provide the perfect opportunity to evaluate how states define their security policies and interests. Here is a teaser: Are the positions of Neville Chamberlain alive and well in modern foreign policy???…

I have the utmost respect for the brave black men and women who stand for their values as Republicans. Think about it. Not the easiest of stances. To identify themselves as Republicans, gasp, Conservatives, yikes, or, blasphemy, Tea Partiers, must be to risk a serious backlash. There will be no New York Times report on their circumstances, at least not one that notes the truth. (And if there is one please let me know.)

Consider the following (source link here);

They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

“I’ve been told I hate myself. I’ve been called an Uncle Tom. I’ve been told I’m a spook at the door,” said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government.

“Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks,” he said

I think it is sad that to be black means, to some, you have to be Democrat! There is a lot of controversy surrounding the Tea Party movement. I understand that. It has been vilified. Won’t go into that. Are there always some radicals on the Right and Left, yes, and they do not represent the whole. (I am still waiting for the video or audio of the actual racial slurs and other epitaphs that was claimed. With all the cell phones with cameras!) The Tea Party movement is made up of a lot of average folks, and some if not many are Democrats and Independents. I attended a Tea Party gathering of over a thousand recently and found it to be peaceful and respectful.

My hat is off to those Black Republicans that risk far more than I do to identify themselves as Republicans. I am not, I am a registered Indepedent and have voted for Democrats (Clinton), Republicans, and Libertarians.

[The photo is of Fox News political analyst Angela McGlowan as she announced at the Tupelo, Miss., City Hall, that she is running for the 1st Congressional District as a Republican.]