I’m going to go out on what should be a well occupied limb ready to break under the weight and say that Donald Stoker’s The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War will win award(s) next year. Stoker’s book is not just keenly researched, but he handles the war policies and strategies of the North and South in a fairly unique way.

From the publisher:

In The Grand Design , Donald Stoker provides a comprehensive and often surprising account of strategy as it evolved between Fort Sumter and Appomattox. Reminding us that strategy is different from tactics (battlefield deployments) and operations (campaigns conducted in pursuit of a strategy), Stoker examines how Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis identified their political goals and worked with their generals to craft the military means to achieve them–or how they often failed to do so. Stoker shows that Davis, despite a West Point education and experience as Secretary of War, failed as a strategist by losing control of the political side of the war. His invasion of Kentucky was a turning point that shifted the loyalties and vast resources of the border states to the Union. Lincoln, in contrast, evolved a clear strategic vision, but he failed for years to make his generals implement it. At the level of generalship, Stoker notes that Robert E. Lee correctly determined the Union’s center of gravity, but proved mistaken in his assessment of how to destroy it. Stoker also presents evidence that the Union could have won the war in 1862, had it followed the grand plan of the much-derided general, George B. McClellan

Books have dealt with how and why the North won and the South lost, tactics, and strategy, but no other book I have read brings it all together within the political and strategic grand policies(or lack thereof) of each.

Stoker brings the startling yet obvious realization quickly to light when he points out that for a period of time when the war started Lincoln and the North had no real strategy. What was the North’s political objective? How and why does it change and how did this inform military strategy, operations, and tactics? If the North could have developed a grand strategy quickly and placed the proper instruments of war into place they could have won sooner. The South on the other hand had a clear grand strategy, and if I read Stoker correctly, but they were uneven in employing it. What is also clear, though not original in this work, is the failure of Davis and the evolution and success of Lincoln as a “grand strategist.”

I could go on and on about this truly unique and excellent work. I highly recommend it. Bravo Mr. Stoker.

Mr. Davis attempted to cover the first 50 years of the 19th century by following the narratives of 6 events: Burr’s trial, Weatherford’s War, the Madison Mutiny, Dade’s promise, Morse’s code and Jesse’s journey. Mr. Davis sought to provide “a portal into the times” in which each event unfolded. These are what he calls “overlooked.”

Mr. Davis has not written a history book in as much as he has a political op-ed piece. Davis starts off with President Obama’s election and throughout the book brings up politics of today and compares it with the past; and he takes events from the past and compares them with today. For example, Davis compared several events from American history with the terrorists attacks of 9/11. Here are those examples: William Weatherford’s “massacre” (Mr. Davis wording) at Fort Mims when Creek Indians stormed the fort and killed over 500 (265 armed militia) but spared the blacks so they could enslave them. Mr. Davis also compares a Seminole Indian attack in Florida against American soldiers as another 9/11 like event. I’m sorry, but how attacks by soldiers (warriors) against soldiers (and yes some settlers who understood the danger) is comparable to a radical Islamic terrorist attack against unarmed civilians whose only crime was going to work compares is beyond me!?

In his “Introduction,” Mr. Davis correctly points out that back in 1776 there were “many founders” who would have “been perfectly at home owning Barack Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two little girls and perhaps selling all or some…” Historically inaccurate? No, the straw man here is easily disposed. Well done Mr. Davis! Of course, Davis fails to point out that some founders did not own slaves: John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Paine. But the point here is Davis’s agenda, it’s “gotcha” history with his own political twist. As if the man is telling us anything new.

Now he does actually get into some interesting stuff with his 6 narratives only his constant injection of politics into his narrative ruined it; at least for me.

Davis then reveals the shocker that Washington (who freed his slaves upon his death) and Jefferson (who could not as he technically no longer owned them upon his death due to massive debts) would surely have been two of those who would have had no problem with the above scenario and would have even taken part. I don’t know how often Washington sold his slaves or if he ever broke up families (and the same goes for Jefferson), but Mr. Davis better know. Does Mr. Davis know that by the time the Revolution and Constitutional Convention are completed and the nation holds its first elections, the fact that anyone was voting on such a massive scale was unprecedented in world history. Remember, most of the world was “ruled” or lived in anarchy.

Mr. Davis then wraps it up by pointing out the hypocrisy of the founding when Obama himself, had he lived back in the day, would have only been “three-fifths of a man” when the counting of population took place for representation in Congress. Never mind that all the racists Southerners wanted all blacks to be counted as an entire human being as it would have benefited them.

Another and final example I will provide, every time (maybe I missed one or two when he didn’t) when Davis compares an event that was bad within something from modern history he does so with only Republicans. In his discussion on “presidential vendettas” he brings up Nixon and Bush, never mind FDR who had political opponents jailed.

The book is nothing more than a political expression of Mr. Davis and a good example of “presentisim” and activism that has no place in historical scholarship.

If you want a good book on this time period, take a look at David Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.

This Act contained certain provisions in favor of aliens residing in the United States prior to the act that allowed for citizenship. The act stipulated that any alien arriving in the United States after the latter period had to comply with the following before he could be admitted to the rights of citizenship:—

1. He shall declare on oath or affirmation, in some competent court, at least three years before his admission, that it was, bonafide, his intention to renounce for ever all allegiance to any sovereign or state of which he was a subject.

2. He shall swear or affirm that he will support the Constitution of the United States.

3. He shall satisfy the court that he has resided within the United States at least five years, and within the State or Territory where such court is held at least one year, before he can be admitted. It must further appear to the satisfaction of the court that he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

4. He shall renounce every title of nobility held by him. Subsequent laws modified this act in the following important particulars :—

A residence in the United States for the continued term of five years, without being at any time without the territory of the same, was required of aliens by an act approved March 3, 1813. This provision, however, was repealed by the act of June 26,1848.

There is a long history of immigration and immigration legislation. Our immigration policies have unfortunately had very negative consequences, for example, the “Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882″ barred Chinese from entering the U.S. and “The Gentlemen’s Agreement” (1907) to regulate Japanese immigration into the country. In 1892 the immigrant processing center Ellis Island opened for Europeans primarily and helped to process about 12 million immigrants over the next 30 years. Each new immigrant had to pass a physical and pay a “head tax.”

The first major step to curb immigration dealt with what was seen as persons who arrived and were physically and mentally incapable of taking care of themselves. The Immigration Act of 1917 increased the entry tax to eight dollars. Then in 1924 The Johnson-Reed Act limited annual European immigration to 2 percent of the population of Europeans in the United States in 1890. After the outbreak of war in 1940, The Alien Registration Act passed and required the registration and fingerprinting of all aliens in the United States over the age of 14.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran Walter Immigration Act) of 1952 affirmed the national-origins quota system of 1924 and limited total annual immigration to one-sixth of one percent of the population of the continental United States in 1920. It also included an exemption for spouses and children of U.S. citizens born in the Western Hemisphere from being a part of the quota.

Other reforms:

1965 – Immigration and Nationality Act repeals the national origins quota system and gives priority to family reunification.

1986 – The Immigration Reform and Control Act gives amnesty to approximately three million undocumented residents and provides punishments for employers who hire undocumented workers.

1990 – The Immigration Act of 1990 increases the number of immigrants allowed into the United States each year to 700,000.

1996 – The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act strengthens border enforcement and makes it more difficult to gain asylum. The law establishes income requirements for sponsors of legal immigrants.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Congress makes citizenship a condition of eligibility for public benefits for most immigrants.

1998 – The American Competitiveness and Work force Improvement Act increases the number of skilled temporary foreign workers U.S. employers are allowed to bring into the country.

The history of this country has always been complex in terms of it relationship to immigrants and natives. For a nation of immigrants we often did not tolerate newly arriving ones. We also forcibly immigrated hundreds of thousands of Blacks.

So I will avoid a blanket statement that attempts to cover the current issue of immigration. What I will say is no sane person can possibly be against immigration. We are a country of constant immigration. What the real issue centers on is Naturalization and the legal process that was good enough for my family (on my father’s side, my mother’s side goes back to the Mayflower) when it arrived penniless before WW2, and is good enough now for newly arriving immigrants.

For some fun, take a basic United States Citizenship quiz.

This short essay will show how the principles of the American Revolution spawned a new era in American society as seen through the prism of the manufacturing and consumption of alcohol in North America. Additionally, how those Enlighten concepts of the Revolution impacted the society.

By analyzing the American Revolution’s impact on alcohol distilleries, the change in consumption habits of Americans, and the evolution of law in regard to alcohol, we can see how the Revolution radically altered American society after the war. More specifically, we can see how the radicalism of the Revolution in terms of how it changed the social structures of the family and the community, its enlightened concepts of freedom and authority, is expressed in the changes within the distillery industry and American consumption habits.

The post-American Revolutionary period saw sweeping changes in society and on multiple levels. As historian Gordon S. Wood noted, in the years after the Revolution “what remained of the traditional social hierarchy virtually collapsed.” The generation that spawned the Revolution, Wood also noted, “hoped to destroy the bonds holding together the older monarchical society – kinship, patriarchy, and patronage” and replace them with the enlightened ideals of “virtue” and a “disinterested public leadership.” In their attempt to transform American society, the Founders did succeed in creating the “most egalitarian, most materialistic, most individualistic” society in the Western world. These ideas of social and political liberalism would impact all aspects of society.

Amid this egalitarian and individualistic society emerged a reliance on the virtue of the individual and the relaxing of stringent Colonial laws on alcohol production and consumption. As we know, when the Pilgrims arrived in 1620 they consumed alcohol, specifically beer, on a daily basis and no laws existed to its consumption and production. However, it did not take long before the government of American Colonies, such as in Massachusetts, began heavily regulating and taxing the manufacturing and consumption of alcohol.

In their effort to radically create their utopia, Puritans themselves eventually attempted to halt the consumption of spirits. Much like a modern totalitarian state, Puritan communities were heavily regulated so that every aspect of life was controlled, including the use of “fire water.”

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AMERICAN BREWING INDUSTRY

1587 Virginia colonists brew ale using corn.
1607 First shipment of beer arrives in the Virginia colony from England.
1609 American “Help Wanted” advertisements appear in London seeking brewers for the Virginia Colony.
1612 Adrian Block & Hans Christiansen establish the first known brewery in the New World on the southern tip of New Amsterdam (Manhattan).
1614 The first non-native American is born in New Amsterdam, (perhaps the first non-native American male born in the New World) in Block & Christiansen’s brewhouse. Jean Vigne grows up to become the first brewer horn in the New World.
1620 Pilgrims arrive in Plymouth in the Colony of Massachusetts aboard the Mayflower. Beer is extremely short on board ship and the seamen force the passengers ashore to ensure that they will have sufficient beer for their return trip to England.
1632 The West India Company builds a brewery on Brewers Street in New Amsterdam led by Governor Van Twiller.
1633 Peter Ninuit establishes a brewery at Market Field on Manhattan Island.
1634 Samuel Cole is the first to be licensed in Boston to operate a tavern.
1637 First authoritatively recorded brewery in the Massachusetts Bay Colony under the control of Captain Sedgwick.
1639 Sergeant Bauleton is placed in charge of a brewhouse in Providence, Rhode Island.
1670 Samuel Wentworth of Portsmouth obtains the first license to brew beer in New Hampshire.
1683 William Penn’s colony erects a brewery at Peonshury near Bristol, Pennsylvania.
1683 William Frampton erects the first brewery in Philadelphia on Front Street between Walnut and Spruce at the Dock Street Creek.
1734 Mary Lisle, the first known “brewster” in America, takes over her late fathers Edinburgh Brewhouse in Philadelphia, which she operates until 1751.
1738 Major William Horton builds the first brewery in the deep south at Jekyll Island, Georgia.
1754 George Washington enters a beer recipe in his notebook.
1762 The Theory and Practice of Brewing by Michael Combrune is published. This is the first attempt to establish rules and principles for the art of brewing.
1765 The British Army builds a brewery at Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh, PA). The first brewery west of the Allegheny mountains.
1765 A brewery is built in the French colonial settlement of Kaskaskia in what is now Illinois. It is the first brewery outside the 13 colonies.
1772 A mixture of dark to light malts called “Porter” is concocted in England. Exports begin to America but it fails to gain popularity.
1774 Robert Smith begins a modest ale brewing venture at Saint John & Noble Streets in Philadelphia. Through relocations and buy outs, the Robert Smith brand will survive until 1986 – 212 years.
1774 The Single Brothers Brewery and Distillery opens in the Noravian religious settlement of Salem, North Carolina.
1775 Revolutionary War measures by Congress include rationing to each soldier one quart of Spruce Beer or Cider per man per day.
1789 George Washington presents his “buy American” policy indicating he will only drink porter made in America.
1789 Massachusetts passes an Act encouraging the manufacture and consumption of beer and ale.

(source)

Government, as it would do often, intervened in not just the consumption of alcohol but also its production including taxation. For example, in 1677 a Massachusetts’s court “established a regulation according to which beer might only be prepared from good barley malt.” Not producing beer with such quality would result in fines. Beer brewing, the type of barley used, the process of brewing beer, the locations for selling beer, and the quality of the beer itself, was all regulated by laws. People could be fined, flogged, and imprisoned for violations. Not to mention, taxes levied on beer brewing and consumption began in earnest and as a result of this government regulation, eventually the brewing and consumption of beer would come to a near halt by the outbreak of the American Revolution. Americans drank rum and tea in much high quantities than beer in 1700s because of regulation and taxes.

But all this would change with the Revolution. Though Americans were still devout Christians, they clung to the ideals of the Enlightenment and the philosophies of Natural Law, individual freedom and virtue. These ideas impacted the distilling industry and the private consumption of alcohol in America. Gordon S. Wood acknowledged that the “Revolution became a full scale assault on dependency” on patronage, radically restructured the family hierarchy, and just as important the role of government.

The idea of government regulating things such as the quality of the barley used in brewing, the location of beer breweries, as well as declaring how many pints of beer was legal to consume, would have seemed overbearing by the generation of Americans after 1776. Post Revolution Americans favored limited government and Natural Law, and at the very most would have allowed state and local governments to handle such issues, and with the consent of the people. It would not be until the radical era of Progressive Liberalism in the early Twentieth Century when government officials once again intervened in pre-Revolution ways with legislation such as the Eighteenth Amendment.

The spirit of the American Revolution led to government actually enacting legislation to promote alcohol consumption. None other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison “were [both] decidedly in favor of the promotion of beer-brewing…” Additionally, in almost every United States Congress during the “two decades after the adoption of the Constitution, measures were considered and adopted which were intended to promote beer-brewing…” Also, the number of distilleries boomed during the decades after the Revolution, “reaching a peak of 20,000 by 1830,” by comparison the number never exceeded 5,000 during the 1700s.

By 1809 consumption of liquor amounted to, on average, a little over 23 quarts a year per person. Up from 10-15 during the Colonial era. The increased consumption of alcohol was due to decreased regulation and enforcement of laws, the ease of taxation, and the growth of American beliefs in individualism and freedom. With this new found freedom, Americans by the 1830s were on average consuming five gallons of liquor per year. This also led to the creation of our Republican government, but as we know it also led to the ease in regulation of things such as the consumption of alcohol and it also led to other developments unintended, but in hindsight not surprising.

By the 1820s American Society seemed to be “coming apart,” as virtually every state saw an increase in “murder, suicide, theft,” and alcoholism. Some have argued that the “burden” and “expectations” of the new American Republic led to an increase of anti-social behaviors when perhaps the opposite is true? Consider that the new found freedoms, the loss of patronage and the withering of stringent religious and government controls threatened to turn their country into a “nation of drunkards,” according to the Delaware Moral Society in 1815. It was not the burden of freedom, but freedom itself that led to self-indulgence.

The America that exited the 1700s was a youthful, confident, and somewhat naive nation that had a lot of figuring out to do and would struggle with the meaning and nature of revolutionary ideas. What is also evident is that the production and consumption of alcohol, the evolution of legal restrictions or lack thereof, gives us, though somewhat limited, an insight into those Revolution ideas and their impact on American society.

[footnotes withheld, image credit]

The curriculum suggested for a T4SJ educator has already been covered here, and it centers around A Plan Book for Social Justice Teachers.

This plan book offers space for daily planning, neat quotes to share with your students, and points of emphasis on a daily basis.

• Weekly planning pages packed with important social justice birthdays and historical events
• References to online lesson plans and resources related to those dates
• Tips from social justice teachers across the country
• Inspirational quotes to share with students
• Thought-provoking essential questions to spark classroom discussions on critical issues
• Reproducible social justice awards for students

The “List of Resources” by themes is very interesting (link). Some excellent topics and ones any teacher should use in balance with what some might call, I don’t know, traditional historical resources. You know, the Constitution, George Washington, Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Civil War, World War 2, ect.

T4SJ, however, is not interested in balance or objectivity and this is my main problem with the movement.

What I pointed out the other day I will admit is a very radical meeting of T4SJ proponents. Traditional Social Justice teachers focus on inequality and racism, which are important themes. Only for them, they teach that EVERYWHERE and EVERYTHING (White related) is about racism and injustice. They educate kids about White Privilege, as titled here “Teaching Against White Privilege and Other Atrocities” (This is from a list of Conferences presentations by one of T4SJ’s most important advocates). I know what they think “White Privilege” is as I sat in a seminar once. I refuse to teach it and “other atrocities,” enough said!

These educators agree with this statement made by one of their own: “Howard Zinn saw no contradiction between teaching and activism. In fact, for him they were inseparable.” (source). Meaning, your job as a teacher is not about education, it is about activism and indoctrination. That is also a big reason why I loath most aspects of T4SJ.

Now am I saying that T4SJ educators are radicals who hope that one day we can, for example, replace Capitalism with Marxism or Socialism? I sure hope not, but the US Social Forum doesn’t help T4SJ’s case.

Here is another interesting resource for T4SJ educators and proponents. (Note: I just love the hammer and sickle logo, you know like Stalin and the Communists used. Do they know that under Communism more people have been murdered than there were by the National Socialists — Nazis?)

We have Environment Justice, Human Justice, ect., and it all sounds great, who would not want justice? Great, but I am for “Equal Justice.” What do I mean by Equal Justice, I mean the complete opposite of T4SJ. Instead of explaining it here for you, I will point you to a lecture by Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice. Dr. Sowell is an African-American professor of economics and author of a lot of books, and frankly is a lot smarter than I. Cosmic Justice addresses, in a unique way, the proponents of Social Justice.

Hope this helps some of you who can’t seem to wrap your head around my point. If not, I am sorry I do not know what more I can do for you.

I receive from various Social Justice sites alerts about conferences and literature, and today I got an invitation as an education to the US Social Forum which is taking place later this month in Detroit, Michigan. The event at first sounds like a great opportunity. From the home page of the site:

The US Social Forum will provide a space to build relationships, learn from each other’s experiences, and share analysis of the problems our communities face. It will help develop leadership, vision, and strategy needed to realize another world.

Another World is Possible. Another US is Necessary!

Sounds great. So I began to look at the programs/workshops offered, I’ll share some with you:

Marx vs. Keynes -Marx vs. Keynes: What is a way out of today’s economic crisis? Is it possible to break with capitalist value production?

This interactive workshop will have two brief (20 minute maximum) presentations on the nature of the present economic crisis of capitalism, which has sent many economists back to the 1930s for guidance for today’s reality. What is similar and what is different about today’s crisis? After financial markets were saved from a 1930s style collapse, the “Great Recession” persists with an effective unemployment rate of over 20 percent among an outraged population in the real economy where we as workers earn a living and support our families. The only alternative put forward by some to the failed policies of the past, monetarism and tax cutting, has been a Keynesian return to 1930s style government intervention in the economy including massive deficit spending. Can this work today? Can it be said to have worked then when it was WWII that finally ended the Great Depression? As against these two orthodoxies, what is Marx’s concept of a general crisis of capitalism and the inter-relation between the ‘Falling Rate of Profit’ and ‘Under-Consumption’? What direction does Marx’s approach lead to in this crisis? What is Marx’s concept of a break with capitalist crisis-prone value production?

Read the above carefully, is that an accurate historical analysis of the Great Depression and Keynesian economics?

A World in Crisis: The Case for Socialism – Socialism has re-entered the political debate–but how do we get there?

Marxism for the 21st Century: Capitalist Crisis, Socialist Solutions – Workshop on current crisis/Marxist thought: reoccurring crises of capitalism, eco-socialist solutions, “neo-left” collaboration with Obama.

Interesting that the above workshop mentions President Obama.

WTF is Socialism Anyway???: The Campus as a Battleground of Class Struggle – “Socialism” is used to describe everything from bailouts to Nazis. YDS will gladly clarify, presenting a history of socialism and describing campus organizing.

This one above, I think, really reflects the kind of people this conference is presented by and those who would attend. I’m sure this workshop will also be historically accurate. You know, I wonder how they will explain the National Socialists party in Germany in the 1930s?

Why Capitalism is Organized Crime & Socialism is the Alternative – Join us in a discussion about why it is only socialism that can solve the ills of capitalist society and bring about a different world.

Look what capitalism is being compared to. Simply mind-boggling!

21st Century Socialism: What It Is and How To Get It – A discussion of the interconnection of democratic and socialist tasks in the current situation, radical structural reform, strategic paths, and a vision for a new socialism.

Sounds like “Fundamental Change” and “change we can believe in!”

The “War on Terror” & the “War on People of Color”: Muslim, Arab, South Asians Build Movement as Black & Brown U.S. Struggle – In the post 9/11 ‘War on Terror’, Muslims, Arab, South Asians join African American, Latino, Native American voices in building a common history of U.S. structural racism and strategizing a unified struggle for justice.

Speechless.

Our Schools, Our Future: Transforming Education through Grassroots Organizing and Winning Youth & Parent-led Educational Equity Campaigns – Does your school feel like a business more than an education center? Do you see racial tracking, high disappearance, high dropout rates and low college-going rates in your school? Do students and parents feel powerless over the decision-making process of your school system? If you say yes to any of these questions, YOU need to be at this workshop! Schools act like labor training centers for a racially and economically stratified society, where the power is held by the few, at the expense of the masses. It is no question that the current education system is the foundation that holds together systems of capitalism, white supremacy, and patriarchy. The question is how do we transform it? In this workshop, you will learn how youth and parents in the Bay Area, California have take significant strides towards educational change within their school systems.

This is called teaching for Social Justice and it is not about truth or honesty, it is about radicalism, indoctrination, and propaganda in our schools. And we wonder why our public schools are failing us? There is little learning going on and instead, lots of indoctrination.

Capitalism is killing us. Fight for SOCIALISM! A collaborative conversation in 2 parts – A conversation on Reform, Revolution and Socialism in the Era of Low-Wage Capitalism; Multi-media, spoken word and open roundtable dialogue with and for revolutionary thinkers/fighters, young leaders and some with decades of experience on paths to united action for reviving the fight for socialism in the U.S. Organization representatives and individuals invited.

They are teaching educators about radicalism and revolution, and they in turn will teach the children!

FINALLY my two favorites as I am clearly a Fascists according to these fine folks!

A Strategy to Counter the Tea Party Fascists - we will discuss a psychologically and spiritually informed alternative to the growth of the Tea Party movement and its resonance with sectors of the American public who might become the base for a future American fascism. We start with an assumption that is often doubted in the Left: that there are real human needs that right-wing movements address, albeit linking those needs to racist, sexist, homophobic, and militarist solutions. Those needs are both economic needs and spiritual needs. Our task is in part to acknowledge the reality of those needs but to help people understand that they could better be addressed by challenging the global capitalist system in which those needs are rooted.

Glenn Beck’s Nightmare: What it Will take to Build a Movement for 21st Century Socialism – Glenn Beck and other right-wing pundits have drummed up the fear of a socialist takeover of U.S. society.

Drummed up! Have they looked at the workshops they are offering? Glenn Beck doesn’t need to work very hard if this is one of his goals. These folks will help make anyone’s job easier if they are concerned about socialism taking over in this country.

This is just more data that our educational system is being hijacked by a movement that seeks to do nothing more than fundamentally change this country into something it was never intended to be!

Go ahead, anyone, defend this, please… help me out here!

I have already addressed the fact that Natural Law was the essential influence in the Declaration and the Constitution. That in itself establishes that the United States of America was founded on principles that flowed from Christian doctrine.

But nonetheless, lets look at this notion that somehow, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening and George Whitefield (who deserves credit for influencing some –if not many– of those Founders such as Samuel Adams), and an era of what some would call today fanatical religious tendencies, that miraculously the Founders were not Christians and at best Deists. By the way, though I think it could be fair to declare some of the Founders as Deists, by definition they stilled believed in God and called themselves, as you will see, Christian. A Deists simply rejects the notion that God intervenes in human affairs (more of a by product of the Enlightenment). This is a reaction, during the 18th and early 19th Centuries, when many rejected the “dogma” of religious institutions; not God.

It would take more time than I am willing and able here to tackle each Founder in one shot, so for this first installment I will tackle two of the prominent Founders that are pointed to as “not Christian”: Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

THOMAS JEFFERSON
The man is a riddle, an enigma, and wrapped in a … vortex, or however the saying goes. I love Jefferson. For all his imperfections in modern eyes, he was still perfect in so many other ways. If it is true that Texas has taken him out or reduced his importance, than I am no fan of their new curriculum.

Let me take you back to 1803, Jefferson is into his second year as President. He had been mauled by the Federalists as being essentially an atheist. (I love how pundits today act like the political shenanigans of today are somehow new!) He wrote what is the best letter that I have found concerning his Christianity or lack there of. The letter was to his esteemed Friend Dr. Benjamin Rush (April 21, 1803) and in it Jefferson was clearly reflective on his record as a Christian, and was writing in response to a long standing promise — apparently — to Rush regarding his (Jefferson) stance on Religion and his religious beliefs.

Jefferson started off by stating, first and foremost, “I am a Christian…” and then he qualifies it, but the statement is clear. Now I can stop there and say, “bring it on,” but sense I know there are those who will have the, “yeah buts,” I will continue. [read letter here if you would like.]

Jefferson’s convictions were indeed complex, which is what one would expect with such a complex thinker. Jefferson continued in this letter, but did so hesitantly as he iterates: “I know it will not be expressed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies.” Jefferson did not know it, but even today there are those with political motivations (like the Federalists) to essentially demonize him by misrepresenting and distorting a few of his words here or there.

Yet Jefferson is complicated and that cannot be denied. Just read the letter noted above and you will see how three dimensional his mind worked. But to say he was not a Christian is a gross and “malignant perversion” of his words.

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
To me Franklin is the key as those who insist that the Founders were not Christian point lovingly to Franklin as the poster child for their argument. Indeed, some of his thoughts and writings can be taken out of context and used to give the impression that he was not a Christian and did not care for religion. He probably did not care for the Church, the institution and did so for reasons he clearly articulated.

Franklin was a child of the Enlightenment and viewed Christianity through that prism. Franklin was a pragmatist and had no tolerance for religious persecution of one religion over another. The “dogma” as he called it. He believed in free will but also wrote very clearly that God, a supreme being, was benevolent and powerful. He believed in Natural Law and also believed in tolerance and utility with regard to living a Christian life. What Franklin did not want was a Preacher telling him how and why he ought to believe in God. [Source: Papers of Benjamin Franklin; also, see Walter Isaacson, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life," Simon & Shuster, 2003; 84-88.]

Final Note, this government website has an array of documents regarding the dedication of Jefferson, Madison, ect., and their religious convictions come Sundays. Strange how non-Christian folks such as Jefferson and Madison would bother dedicating, religiously, their Sundays to God and church.

Next Segment: Washington and John Adams

But one reason he mentioned halfway through his book really got me thinking. Brinkley’s support for his thesis makes sense—recession, changing leaders, etc. But his take on how the totalitarian regimes overseas in Europe affected American feelings on what role the “state” should play was much more significant than he bothered to mention. Brinkley writes that

“No one giving serious thought to the nature and role of government could remain unaffected by the character of the regimes the United States and its allies were fighting in World War II. As early as the mid-1930s, a revulsion from and fear of totalitarian states of Europe—Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Stalin’s Soviet Union—had begun to penetrate the thinking of many liberals and intellectuals…Perhaps inevitably, it prompted some liberals to reconsider their own commitment to an activist managerial state. Statism, they began to believe, could produce tyranny and oppression. However serious the structural problems of the capitalist economy, a statist cure might be worse than the disease” (154).

In this, Brinkley’s book comes across as a warning to much of what is going on in our current economic climate. Prior to WWII, Americans had not only known publicly about the regimes in Europe, but had praised Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, and many were calling for similar regimes in the United States. They wanted more government involvement.  After all, Mussolini made the trains run on time, the concept of “equality” that the Soviet Union lied about, and Hitler’s desire to simply revive the German economy were good things to many Americans. But after Pearl Harbor Americans began to see just that too much control by the state only led to tyranny and dictator ship. Americans had never been fond of either, and they were not about to let what was happening in Europe happen in America.

Therefore, Americans took a good look in the mirror and saw that the very thing they were fighting against during WWII, was possible in their own backyard. Brinkley demonstrates just how effective the fear of statism in America was by how FDR himself gradually chose to distance himself away from the New Deal, and focus more on the war effort (where I think his real “greatness” is best represented).

That was in the 1930s and 1940s. But what about what’s going on today? The American people during WWII could see very clearly what statism could create—a Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Stalin. This brought a fear that called for a return to capitalism as a better remedy not jut for economic success, but for freedom and liberty. The people saw and reacted.

But today’s statism is much more deceptive than when FDR was running the show. We have Americans like Vance Jones calling for socialism that were placed in leadership by President Obama. We have been moving rapidly in just two years toward a large increase in government power, especially in the economic sector. And although the tea party people represent the “fear” and reaction that Americans in the 1940s displayed, we are not involved in a war against the very type of governments we were afraid of similarly becoming like. We have “social democracy” promotion, or simply called “social justice.” All mentioned are simply more of the same. It is statism.

My title states that totalitarianism is the savior of American Capitalism. Certainly the regimes in Europe had much to do to bring Americans back to their senses. I just hope we don’t need another Hitler, Stalin, Franco, and Mussolini to do so again. But the way we keep looking to government to solve the problems we currently face, it makes me wonder if history is repeating itself.  Somewhere out there George Santayana is saying, “I told you so.”

Thomas Paine’s popularity today among historians and readers of early American history has numerous origins. It’s not hard to imagine why? He never owned slaves and immediately on his arrival (late 1774) denounced slavery and even joined Benjamin Franklin as a member of Franklin’s anti-slavery society. Paine also was an outspoken critic of the English Crown, parliament and its corruption, but most importantly for modern social historians, he was an advocate of the poor, the downtrodden. His ability to offer clarity, context, and relevance to the debate over separation from the mother country of England for the colonists was essential to the popularity of his famous pamphlet, “Common Sense.” His words would have inspired those Revolutionaries already decidedly for independence, and the simplicity and force of his argument would have swayed those who were “on the fence.” The Loyalists would have, most likely, stayed loyal regardless of Paine’s argument.

The “reach” of Paine’s pamphlet alone is relevant to the question surrounding this paper: Would I have been swayed by Paine’s writing? Seeing that 1/5 of all colonists read Paine’s pamphlet, it’s a safe bet that I would have been able to acquire a copy of the text. Additionally, reach does not only apply to the physical ability to find the pamphlet, but also the ability to grasp its meaning. As we know, Paine’s writing style was very accessible to the average person. His prose “appealed to a cross-section of people: to artisans, craftsmen, and tradesmen as well as to bankers, manufacturers, and industrialists.” Additionally, most colonists could read and they enjoyed their local newspaper and visited coffee shops where politics were freely discussed. Word of Paine’s pamphlet would have spread quickly and his words debated.

Colonial society was ripe for separation from England. America was a “provincial” society that took pride in its “Englishness,” yet by the 1760s most colonialists felt the distance between them and the motherland. They felt that they were secondary to their counterparts on the island. Indeed, the actions that would be taken by the Crown leading up to the publication of Paine’s pamphlet setup an explosive situation that only needed igniting. Paine’s words would be that spark.

Paine takes his readers down a path that has only one destination: independence. But first he must provide a context and a meaning for the average colonist to comprehend. He wastes no time in raising the stakes when he writes, “[the] cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.” Right away the struggle was not just about independence, but freedom and not just for America, but for all mankind. This was a stroke of genius on Paine’s part. He immediately frames the idea of independence within the context of a continuing and ongoing struggle for freedom that encompassed all human beings.

From there Paine begins to outline the very basic ideas of John Locke and others: that individual rights come from a “natural” law and not from a King or government. “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness,” he wrote. Paine starts off with having very few positive things to say about government. He ends this argument stating that though government is necessary, the way it exists in England is corrupt and inept. This leads to the obvious question, Why? Who is to blame? In order for Paine to give a strong argument for separation from England, he has to give us someone to blame, someone to loath. To him the answer was obvious: King George and Monarchy itself. It would be easy for me to loath such a form of government after reading Paine’s arguments.

Part II of his discourse systematically attacked the Crown and in very damning language. The problem with a monarchy was clear to him, “for monarchy in every instance is the Popery of government.” Paine outlines the “evil” nature of hereditary governing and how unnatural and undesirable this form of rule is. It is oppressive and infringes on those natural rights that all citizens have. No, a monarchy simply won’t do for Americans.

Paine felt as if he had to layout this course of action for his fellow colonists. He felt that he had to convince them. It was for him a commonsensical way of thinking about the situation. As Paine tells us, “I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense.” And then he goes about doing just that and for us to understand what needs to be done. If his fellow Americans could not understand that “TIS’ TIME TO PART,” than one gets the feeling that Paine would have had no sympathy for us. It was self-evident that an island cannot rule a continent. Keeping political ties with England simply for defense or for the illusion of kinship was not enough for Paine. These were illogical arguments. That he would bring these points up shows that the connection between America and England had been reduced to simply commerce and little more.

Staying under the rule of a King was subjecting one to idea that “the law is King.” The law should serve us the colonists, Paine argued. The natural rights of property and freedom for individuals, and the freedom to practice any religion went against the idea of the King. These Republican ideas were already commonly held in America and to continue being ruled by a monarchy from across the ocean was counter to the idea of America’s own understand of freedom and politics. It was “tyranny” in practice as evidenced by the actions of the King.

Paine continues his argument by outlining what a “just” form of government is and that it was upon us to “begin government at the right end.” To establish a true republic with the principles that were self-evident and where all men were created equal. The governed would elect their leaders and where the King was the law, the “law is [now] King” and not the other way around. Most astonishing of all, perhaps, was Paine’s foresight in calling for a Constitutional Convention.

Paine’s Common Sense pamphlet placed the idea of independence within a larger struggle. He gave it a context. Paine outlined why the current state of affairs was not sustainable. And in simple, yet fiery ways, Paine outlined the basic facts that Independence was inevitable.

[footnotes have been removed]