The Declaration of Independence
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
WHEN IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN EVENTS, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the Consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislature, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whole character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United states of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Source Document - George Washington's Farewell Address
The Farewell Address
By George Washington
September 19, 1796
Friends, & Fellow--Citizens:
The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the sametime, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful Citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my Situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of, & continuance hitherto in, the Office to which your Suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed & critical posture of our Affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.
I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; & am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions, with which, I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthned the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the encreasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotizm does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude wch I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the stedfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful & persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, viscissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence--that your Union & brotherly affection may be perpetual--that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained--that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue--that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection--and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop.
But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to biass his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your endulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the Attachment.
The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes & from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal & external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly & insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective & individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual & immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your Interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding & preserving the Union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal Laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of Maratime & commercial enterprise and--precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same Intercourse, benefitting by the Agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow & its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation envigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish & increase the general mass of the National navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a Maratime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications, by land & water, will more & more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth & comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the Secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of Interest as one Nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own seperate strength, or from an apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate & particular Interest in Union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means & efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their Peace by foreign Nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and Wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries, not tied together by the same government; which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments & intriegues would stimulate & imbitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty: In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting & virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective Subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. 'Tis well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason, to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes wch may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern--Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions & aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal Affection. The Inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have Seen, in the Negociation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the Treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their Interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two Treaties, that with G: Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing they could desire, in respect to our Foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by wch they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those Advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their Brethren and connect them with Aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of Your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No Alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions & interruptions which all Alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government, better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation & mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its Laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political Systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the People to establish Government presupposes the duty of every Individual to obey the established Government.
All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of Governments, as of other human institutions--that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing Constitution of a Country--that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses & opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion: and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable--Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the Society within the limits prescribed by the laws & to maintain all in the secure & tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person & property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its Administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional Spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, & constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient & modern; some of them in our country & under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.
Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
As a very important source of strength & security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expence by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it--avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expence, but by vigorous exertions in time of Peace to discharge the Debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your Representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue--that to have Revenue there must be taxes--that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant--that the intrinsic embarrassment inseperable from the Selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith & justice towds all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all--Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages wch might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another--disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate envenomed and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill will & resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister & pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels & Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions--by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained--& by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great & powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.
Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?
'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances,[note] with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it--for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidility to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing & deversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our Merchants, and to enable the Government to support them--conventional rules of intercourse;the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, & liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that 'tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favours and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my Countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression, I could wish--that they will controul the usual current of the passions, or prevent our Nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the Destiny of Nations: But if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now & then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign Intriegue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompence for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.
How far in the discharge of my Official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public Records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to You and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
In relation to the still subsisting War in Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of Your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me; uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain I was well satisfied that our Country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest, to take a Neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverence & firmness.
The considerations, which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers has been virtually admitted by all.
The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every Nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of Peace and amity towards other Nations.
The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections & experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle & mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strength & consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error--I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that after forty five years of my life dedicated to its Service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the Mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a Man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several Generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow Citizens, the benign influence of good Laws under a free Government--the ever favourite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labours and dangers.
Go: Washington
By George Washington
September 19, 1796
Friends, & Fellow--Citizens:
The period for a new election of a Citizen, to Administer the Executive government of the United States, being not far distant, and the time actually arrived, when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person, who is to be cloathed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made.
I beg you, at the sametime, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation, which binds a dutiful Citizen to his country--and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my Situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.
The acceptance of, & continuance hitherto in, the Office to which your Suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped, that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives, which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement, from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last Election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed & critical posture of our Affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea.
I rejoice, that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty, or propriety; & am persuaded whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.
The impressions, with which, I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say, that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the Organization and Administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious, in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthned the motives to diffidence of myself; and every day the encreasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services, they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe, that while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotizm does not forbid it.
In looking forward to the moment, which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude wch I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the stedfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful & persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that, under circumstances in which the Passions agitated in every direction were liable to mislead, amidst appearances sometimes dubious, viscissitudes of fortune often discouraging, in situations in which not unfrequently want of Success has countenanced the spirit of criticism, the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that Heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence--that your Union & brotherly affection may be perpetual--that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained--that its Administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and Virtue--that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete, by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection--and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it.
Here, perhaps, I ought to stop.
But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments; which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a People. These will be offered to you with the more freedom as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to biass his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your endulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion.
Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the Attachment.
The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home; your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that from different causes & from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal & external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly & insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective & individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual & immoveable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.
For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.
With slight shades of difference, you have the same Religeon, Manners, Habits & political Principles. You have in a common cause fought & triumphed together--The independence & liberty you possess are the work of joint councils, and joint efforts--of common dangers, sufferings and successes.
But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your Interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding & preserving the Union of the whole.
The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal Laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of Maratime & commercial enterprise and--precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South in the same Intercourse, benefitting by the Agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow & its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation envigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish & increase the general mass of the National navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a Maratime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications, by land & water, will more & more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth & comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the Secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of Interest as one Nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own seperate strength, or from an apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power, must be intrinsically precarious.
While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate & particular Interest in Union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means & efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their Peace by foreign Nations; and, what is of inestimable value! they must derive from Union an exemption from those broils and Wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighbouring countries, not tied together by the same government; which their own rivalships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments & intriegues would stimulate & imbitter. Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty: In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.
These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting & virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of Patriotic desire. Is there a doubt, whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective Subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. 'Tis well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to Union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason, to distrust the patriotism of those, who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.
In contemplating the causes wch may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by Geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern--Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavour to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of Party to acquire influence, within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions & aims of other Districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies & heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations. They tend to render Alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal Affection. The Inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head. They have Seen, in the Negociation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the Treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their Interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two Treaties, that with G: Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them every thing they could desire, in respect to our Foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by wch they were procured? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those Advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their Brethren and connect them with Aliens?
To the efficacy and permanency of Your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No Alliances however strict between the parts can be an adequate substitute. They must inevitably experience the infractions & interruptions which all Alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government, better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation & mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its Laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political Systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the People to establish Government presupposes the duty of every Individual to obey the established Government.
All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and Associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, controul counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the Constituted authorities are distructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency. They serve to Organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force--to put in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party; often a small but artful and enterprizing minority of the Community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public Administration the Mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the Organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modefied by mutual interests. However combinations or Associations of the above description may now & then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, & to usurp for themselves the reins of Government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.
Towards the preservation of your Government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of Governments, as of other human institutions--that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing Constitution of a Country--that facility in changes upon the credit of mere hypotheses & opinion exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypotheses and opinion: and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable--Liberty itself will find in such a Government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest Guardian. It is indeed little else than a name, where the Government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the Society within the limits prescribed by the laws & to maintain all in the secure & tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person & property.
I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.
This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast Patriotism may look with endulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.
It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free Country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its Administration, to confine themselves within their respective Constitutional Spheres; avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power; by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, & constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient & modern; some of them in our country & under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.
Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
As a very important source of strength & security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expence by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it--avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expence, but by vigorous exertions in time of Peace to discharge the Debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your Representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue--that to have Revenue there must be taxes--that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient & unpleasant--that the intrinsic embarrassment inseperable from the Selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
Observe good faith & justice towds all Nations. Cultivate peace & harmony with all--Religion & morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a People always guided by an exalted justice & benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages wch might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human Nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one Nation against another--disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate envenomed and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill will & resentment sometimes impels to War the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the Nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister & pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the Liberty, of Nations has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favourite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels & Wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification: It leads also to concessions to the favourite Nation of priviledges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions--by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained--& by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom eql priviledges are withheld: And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favourite Nation) facility to betray, or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition corruption or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great & powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,), the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defence against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intriegues of the favourite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause & confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled, with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.
Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.
Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?
'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances,[note] with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it--for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidility to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
Harmony, liberal intercourse with all Nations, are recommended by policy, humanity and interest. But even our Commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand: neither seeking nor granting exclusive favours or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing & deversifying by gentle means the streams of Commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with Powers so disposed--in order to give to trade a stable course, to define the rights of our Merchants, and to enable the Government to support them--conventional rules of intercourse;the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, & liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that 'tis folly in one Nation to look for disinterested favors from another--that it must pay with a portion of its Independence for whatever it may accept under that character--that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favours and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favours from Nation to Nation. 'Tis an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
In offering to you, my Countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression, I could wish--that they will controul the usual current of the passions, or prevent our Nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the Destiny of Nations: But if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now & then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign Intriegue, to guard against the Impostures of pretended patriotism--this hope will be a full recompence for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.
How far in the discharge of my Official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public Records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to You and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.
In relation to the still subsisting War in Europe, my Proclamation of the 22d of April 1793 is the index to my Plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice and by that of Your Representatives in both Houses of Congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me; uninfluenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it.
After deliberate examination with the aid of the best lights I could obtain I was well satisfied that our Country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound in duty and interest, to take a Neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it, with moderation, perseverence & firmness.
The considerations, which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe, that according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the Belligerent Powers has been virtually admitted by all.
The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every Nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of Peace and amity towards other Nations.
The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections & experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavour to gain time to our country to settle & mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress without interruption, to that degree of strength & consistency, which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.
Though in reviewing the incidents of my Administration, I am unconscious of intentional error--I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my Country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that after forty five years of my life dedicated to its Service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the Mansions of rest.
Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a Man, who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several Generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that retreat, in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow Citizens, the benign influence of good Laws under a free Government--the ever favourite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labours and dangers.
Go: Washington
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Hate-Radio Propaganda, National Sovereignty, and George Washington's Farewell Address
The other day I called in to a local radio show. This was a few days before the new NIE report that, thankfully, seems to have ratcheted down the rhetoric on Iran a bit. The formulaic gimmick for generating callers that morning was: 'let's talk about recent and outrageous miscarriages of justice in the Sudan (the teddy bear named Muhammad) and Saudi Arabia (the condemned rape victim) in order to get people worked into a supportive and patriotic frenzy for bombing Iran'. I do understand that's the standard MO for talk radio. And, no, I don't think the topic was any part of a 'warmongering conspiracy'. But once enough propaganda has made it's way into general discourse, the ideas become pretty self-perpetuating. I really objected to this particular propaganda and so I felt obliged to call in and say so.
I started off by stating that both of these tragedies were, of course, indefensible and – I hoped – might reasonably help us reconsider our strange national alliances – in this case our alliance with Saudi Arabia in particular. As we look closer at the laws on the books and the way they are carried out in some of these countries, I said, it seemed unwise to be providing those same regimes with billions of dollars worth of the latest military machines to push their agendas with.
The host, of course, started to agree until he heard me suggest that tired 'no entangling alliances' meme from George Washington's farewell address. Then the host backpedaled and said that maybe the world has changed too much to heed advice like that anymore. I've called in to that show enough that I felt comfortable asking if I could make my second point and take my answer off air. He obliged (I'd been fairly succinct and polite) and I stated it:
The show started off with two far-flung travesties of justice in entirely different non-neighboring countries which only happen to have Muslim majorities. It seemed like dangerous propaganda to me when the justification of bombing Iran was suddenly conflated with those events in Sudan and Afghanistan. It was, I said, too similar to propaganda on communist television during the Cold War. There'd be an isolated hate crime against a some religious minority in Canada perhaps and something similarly tragic like a school shooting in Scotland maybe and the point of the broadcast would be that nations like the U.S. (not mentioned in either story) who get caught up in the dangerous expression of religions and who are, further, free to distribute guns to regular citizens are the most frightening and violent on the planet.
I said I worried that a such a similar setup for that day's morning show was going to mostly draw poorly considered racist-hate comments from callers for the entire program. [Indeed, I'd had to sit through two or three long, racist tirades that the host had tried to tone down while waiting to speak.] Perhaps that rang true with someone because – for that morning at least – they switched topics after my call.
I'm not really sure at which point reasonable and logical similarity becomes pernicious, conflated propaganda. I don't think I've considered it much before. I would likely do well to be more careful of it myself. Perhaps it has to do with your dedication to 'fairness' and your respect for 'reality'. By this I mean, that too many messages out there have ulterior motives as their ultimate endgame. Some pundits and leaders seem to care less about accuracy, fairness, and reality than they do about generating controversy, provoking discussion, or – far too often – promoting a pre-determined ideology.
Of course that gets me thinking about Ron Paul and why I really like his leadership the more I take a look at it. He is studiously judicious in what events he believes do or do not have relevant relation to each other – and he can defend his reasoning quite clearly. (eg he does find it reasonable to point out that our general policy of asymmetric military intervention incites Anti-American resentment throughout the globe, but he does not find it reasonable to exactly label every US military action in the Middle East a 'measured response to the attacks of 9/11'.) His lack of polish when he simply states things as he sees them is remarkably reassuring. When he does find himself falling back on ideology he is extremely transparent in hearkening back to the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers.
Consequently, Paul is the only Presidential candidate confidently preaching that George Washington's warnings are not too old-fashioned – but needed more than ever. Further, he is intimately familiar with those warnings; he understands them; and he can communicate them clearly.
Paul proposes that long-term, sovereignty-sapping, entangling alliances complicate the world and our foreign policy in ways that are bad for everyone. We need to deal with the Iranians, and the Pakistanis, and the Sudanese, and the Saudis on more transparent terms – and not based on back-channel promises, unwise military pacts, and multitudinous pressures from "allies" who may not share our world-views or goals.
Here's a link to Washington's Farewell Address where he warns against both "apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power" and "overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty".
[Given Romney's recent speech you may also be interested to read that portion that begins "... Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness ..."]
I started off by stating that both of these tragedies were, of course, indefensible and – I hoped – might reasonably help us reconsider our strange national alliances – in this case our alliance with Saudi Arabia in particular. As we look closer at the laws on the books and the way they are carried out in some of these countries, I said, it seemed unwise to be providing those same regimes with billions of dollars worth of the latest military machines to push their agendas with.
The host, of course, started to agree until he heard me suggest that tired 'no entangling alliances' meme from George Washington's farewell address. Then the host backpedaled and said that maybe the world has changed too much to heed advice like that anymore. I've called in to that show enough that I felt comfortable asking if I could make my second point and take my answer off air. He obliged (I'd been fairly succinct and polite) and I stated it:
The show started off with two far-flung travesties of justice in entirely different non-neighboring countries which only happen to have Muslim majorities. It seemed like dangerous propaganda to me when the justification of bombing Iran was suddenly conflated with those events in Sudan and Afghanistan. It was, I said, too similar to propaganda on communist television during the Cold War. There'd be an isolated hate crime against a some religious minority in Canada perhaps and something similarly tragic like a school shooting in Scotland maybe and the point of the broadcast would be that nations like the U.S. (not mentioned in either story) who get caught up in the dangerous expression of religions and who are, further, free to distribute guns to regular citizens are the most frightening and violent on the planet.
I said I worried that a such a similar setup for that day's morning show was going to mostly draw poorly considered racist-hate comments from callers for the entire program. [Indeed, I'd had to sit through two or three long, racist tirades that the host had tried to tone down while waiting to speak.] Perhaps that rang true with someone because – for that morning at least – they switched topics after my call.
I'm not really sure at which point reasonable and logical similarity becomes pernicious, conflated propaganda. I don't think I've considered it much before. I would likely do well to be more careful of it myself. Perhaps it has to do with your dedication to 'fairness' and your respect for 'reality'. By this I mean, that too many messages out there have ulterior motives as their ultimate endgame. Some pundits and leaders seem to care less about accuracy, fairness, and reality than they do about generating controversy, provoking discussion, or – far too often – promoting a pre-determined ideology.
Of course that gets me thinking about Ron Paul and why I really like his leadership the more I take a look at it. He is studiously judicious in what events he believes do or do not have relevant relation to each other – and he can defend his reasoning quite clearly. (eg he does find it reasonable to point out that our general policy of asymmetric military intervention incites Anti-American resentment throughout the globe, but he does not find it reasonable to exactly label every US military action in the Middle East a 'measured response to the attacks of 9/11'.) His lack of polish when he simply states things as he sees them is remarkably reassuring. When he does find himself falling back on ideology he is extremely transparent in hearkening back to the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers.
Consequently, Paul is the only Presidential candidate confidently preaching that George Washington's warnings are not too old-fashioned – but needed more than ever. Further, he is intimately familiar with those warnings; he understands them; and he can communicate them clearly.
Paul proposes that long-term, sovereignty-sapping, entangling alliances complicate the world and our foreign policy in ways that are bad for everyone. We need to deal with the Iranians, and the Pakistanis, and the Sudanese, and the Saudis on more transparent terms – and not based on back-channel promises, unwise military pacts, and multitudinous pressures from "allies" who may not share our world-views or goals.
Here's a link to Washington's Farewell Address where he warns against both "apostate & unnatural connection with any foreign Power" and "overgrown Military establishments, which under any form of Government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty".
[Given Romney's recent speech you may also be interested to read that portion that begins "... Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness ..."]
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Romney's Speech on Religious Freedom in America
I have to say that Mitt Romney exceeded my hopes and expectations with his speech about Religious Freedom in America. It wasn't a perfect message, of course, but it deserves praise for what it did well. That speech was Romney at his best. I'm even going to revise the title of my previous blog post criticizing his potential speech; to my way of thinking, at least, that was a speech that mattered and made a good difference in the world.
I truly admired his clear and unabashed references to religion in the lives of our founders, in the "symphony" of faiths in our current populace, and in his personal life. He focused on common beliefs, bore a sincere testimony, didn't back away from his beliefs, and really delivered . . . maybe Paul could use him in the cabinet somewhere. I'd back that. :]
I still think he is over the top when he cites "radical Islam" itself as America's greatest danger, but he was pretty careful in that speech to both openly praise the good, common beliefs of many faiths in America (including Muslims) and specify that it's only the radical Muslims he believes we need to fear. I'll stick my neck out and profer that I honestly fear radical Christians and Secularists in this country (like those inventing some of the belligerent-imperialist worldviews that Romney seems to have bought into so deeply) as much or more than radical Muslims. Somehow Romney seems blinded to this. Radical Muslims frighten him. Radical Secularists worry him. Heck, I'm concerned about both of those as well. But he doesn't seem to see the common thread that would indicate that radical anything is pretty scary.
Nevertheless, any mainstream politician that is willing to speak out in such an eloquent and sincere way in the defense of the good in religion – and a brazen belief in God – impresses me. It is simply a fact that such beliefs defined our Founding Fathers. The idea that a number of them might have been skeptical about specific denominational observances is not necessarily anything derogatory – in fact it illuminates both their sense of reason and tolerance. Likewise, the fact that a few expressed a sense of deism in personal belief, for instance, still puts those founders a long way from secular atheism.
As Romney emphasized, our laws and principles were predicated on and informed by religious laws, principles, and a sincere belief in God. A thorough study at the University of Houston [examining nearly 15,000 political essays written between 1760 and 1805] shows that overwhelmingly the Bible was the most frequently quoted text informing political thought. (After that it was Blackstone, Montesque, Locke, etc. - but far behind the Bible.) You simply cannot understand the worldview of our Founding Fathers without considering their readings of the Bible and their beliefs about man's divine origin.
On the other hand, sometimes Romney seemed to go too far in his pandering to hard-core evangelicals. Not only did he not seem too worried about weaving in his traditional Islamic scare, but he didn't show much awareness or tolerance for those who might currently be lacking a specific faith. It would have been wonderful for Romney to reach out in tolerance, understanding, and exemplary confidence with a more inclusive and less condemning message but quite frankly I didn't expect the full wisdom of President Hinckley at the podium. Of the candidates who are in the race, if you want Romney's observance of our Christian foundations plus a thoughtful and inclusive message plus true regard for liberty then you should probably vote Ron Paul.
But Romney's heartfelt speech was successful in its ability to convey both his own sincere convictions and the central role of religious expression in the foundation of this great nation. Romney highlighted that role and celebrates it – and he is right to do so.
That unique balance of devoutness and tolerance exhibited by our forbears – and laid out in our Constitution – is one of the most revolutionary characteristics of this great experiment we call the United States of America. It is still providing strength and liberty more than two centuries later.
[I'll post a youtube when I can get one. For now you can stream the speech from KSL]
I truly admired his clear and unabashed references to religion in the lives of our founders, in the "symphony" of faiths in our current populace, and in his personal life. He focused on common beliefs, bore a sincere testimony, didn't back away from his beliefs, and really delivered . . . maybe Paul could use him in the cabinet somewhere. I'd back that. :]
I still think he is over the top when he cites "radical Islam" itself as America's greatest danger, but he was pretty careful in that speech to both openly praise the good, common beliefs of many faiths in America (including Muslims) and specify that it's only the radical Muslims he believes we need to fear. I'll stick my neck out and profer that I honestly fear radical Christians and Secularists in this country (like those inventing some of the belligerent-imperialist worldviews that Romney seems to have bought into so deeply) as much or more than radical Muslims. Somehow Romney seems blinded to this. Radical Muslims frighten him. Radical Secularists worry him. Heck, I'm concerned about both of those as well. But he doesn't seem to see the common thread that would indicate that radical anything is pretty scary.
Nevertheless, any mainstream politician that is willing to speak out in such an eloquent and sincere way in the defense of the good in religion – and a brazen belief in God – impresses me. It is simply a fact that such beliefs defined our Founding Fathers. The idea that a number of them might have been skeptical about specific denominational observances is not necessarily anything derogatory – in fact it illuminates both their sense of reason and tolerance. Likewise, the fact that a few expressed a sense of deism in personal belief, for instance, still puts those founders a long way from secular atheism.
As Romney emphasized, our laws and principles were predicated on and informed by religious laws, principles, and a sincere belief in God. A thorough study at the University of Houston [examining nearly 15,000 political essays written between 1760 and 1805] shows that overwhelmingly the Bible was the most frequently quoted text informing political thought. (After that it was Blackstone, Montesque, Locke, etc. - but far behind the Bible.) You simply cannot understand the worldview of our Founding Fathers without considering their readings of the Bible and their beliefs about man's divine origin.
On the other hand, sometimes Romney seemed to go too far in his pandering to hard-core evangelicals. Not only did he not seem too worried about weaving in his traditional Islamic scare, but he didn't show much awareness or tolerance for those who might currently be lacking a specific faith. It would have been wonderful for Romney to reach out in tolerance, understanding, and exemplary confidence with a more inclusive and less condemning message but quite frankly I didn't expect the full wisdom of President Hinckley at the podium. Of the candidates who are in the race, if you want Romney's observance of our Christian foundations plus a thoughtful and inclusive message plus true regard for liberty then you should probably vote Ron Paul.
But Romney's heartfelt speech was successful in its ability to convey both his own sincere convictions and the central role of religious expression in the foundation of this great nation. Romney highlighted that role and celebrates it – and he is right to do so.
That unique balance of devoutness and tolerance exhibited by our forbears – and laid out in our Constitution – is one of the most revolutionary characteristics of this great experiment we call the United States of America. It is still providing strength and liberty more than two centuries later.
[I'll post a youtube when I can get one. For now you can stream the speech from KSL]
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
The Imperial Elephant in the Room
I've noticed that when trying to discuss America's foreign policy there seems to be what is often called "an elephant in the room." And it's not the branded GOP mascot, but rather both Democrats and Republicans have been inviting this elephant into the house for decades: feeding it, grooming it, but otherwise acting completely oblivious to its presence and the awkward way family and guests alike are sometimes squashed against the wall in an effort to maneuver around it. The elephant in the living room is the growing American Empire.
When our founding fathers found it necessary to separate from the British Empire, they had clear grievances regarding the very ideas of imperialism, colonialism, and holding the interests of large corporations [like the East India Trading Company] as more important to 'national interests' than any petty concerns of far flung individuals living abroad. Further, they were particularly sensitive to the dangers and abuses of a standing imperial army sent overseas to police a people that they didn't really understand.
For example, one of the key incidents that led to American Revolution is the "Boston Massacre". Three to four hundred angry civilians surrounded a regiment of British troops on the evening of March 5, 1770. The mob resented the presence of the troops - sent to protect 'Loyalist' interests in the wake of unpopular Imperial decrees - and particularly on that day the forming mob was angry about the interactions of some soldiers that had physically struck a child throwing snowballs at the troops earlier in the day. When one of the civilians struck a soldier down with a club, chaos ensued and at its end three civilians had been shot dead, with two more dying of injuries in the days to follow. That is what has entered our American history books as the 'brutal' and 'horrific' Boston Massacre. With tragedies far worse than this occuring almost daily in our newest colony over in Iraq, I find the irony deeply disturbing.
There is much that needs to be said in recalling our founding principles and relating them to our current actions. For instance, following up on the Boston Massacre in particular, it is notable that the 'rebellious Patriot' and future President John Adams agreed to legally represent the British soldiers in the incident. He felt that - despite his politics - the soldiers had indeed felt threatened and were actually just trying to do their jobs. He wrote in his diary that to have exacted vengeance upon them would have been "as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches." He felt it a moral duty to get the soldiers acquited and did so. But he also wrote that the incident was "the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies." Not all the Patriots felt so magnanimous about it and, in fact, general outrage at the soldiers' acquitals contributed directly to the American Rebellion. Nevertheless, I find Adams' personal actions notable.
But back to the elephant at hand. How on earth have we moved so far from our principles that we have allowed ourselves to become Imperialists? When I call Iraq a colony, I am not mincing words. I am calling a spade, a spade. I am pointing directly at the elephant in the room and saying "What are we going to do with that?" What concerns me is the glib denial of our current state of affairs. We have, in fact, invaded a far away, sovereign nation that did not attack us. We have deposed the government and set up a new government that is at the present time as completely beholden to our interests as the original American colonies were to the British empire.
As neo-colonialism dictates, we have put in a place a series of promises and treaties to put a good public face on this wherein we proclaim the nation 'liberated' and explain that we are merely transitioning them to a 'new and better democracy'. But despite our innumerable claims to the contrary, we have always – since before the invasion – intended to set up an archipelago of permanent military bases (read: U.S. inland-island-colonies) in Iraq. These are intended to complement the ones left behind in Korea, Cuba, Germany, Japan, the Philippines, and throughout the world. Specifically, in this case, the Iraqi bases allowed us to physically relocate, expand, and upgrade our older Saudi Arabian military bases.
In fact – because America is still a free country – many of the documents proving that this was our intention and certainly the greatest unstated reason for invading Iraq have come to light in recent years. The main problem with these admissions is that not only were our original intentions not stated, but they were categorically denied – with intense campaigns of disinformation.
This is the new colonialism. We build great standing armies and circle the globe with them, but we are extraordinarily careful not to call ourselves a global empire. We likewise cultivate entangling alliances with agent nations that are not actually called our 'colonies'. It is more complex, yet in the end we do all of the things that the British Empire did when they caused our forefathers to rise up in condemnation and rebellion. It is anti-American for so many reasons that the founders could have written tomes about it – and in fact they did.
Perhaps if we studied our history, we would have the courage to break the taboo and have an honest debate about neo-colonialism and the new American Empire. Until we do, we are going to have to spend more and more resources trying to figure out how to properly domesticate and conceal the elephant in the room. And I for one, do not believe that to be in the best interest of anyone in the room.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Ron Paul and Barack Obama
I've spent the year trying to study the different candidates and messages regarding America's future under a new President beginning in 2008. I've particularly mentioned some candidates that I couldn't support and I think I've made my case pretty clearly as to why. But I have not spent enough time talking about the candidates and messages that I *do* believe are worthy of support.
The two candidates that I find most compelling, given my particular values and concerns, are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. They are similar in many ways and I probably could support either of them in the general election.
Each of them talk with sincerity about unity, honesty, communication, and freedom.
At present, Paul gets the edge in my book. Paul is taking the much more difficult road, however, with his principled stance against special interest and lobbying funds – and consequently his actual message and platform are much less well-known.
Obama has plenty of mainstream corporate and lobbying support which assures him a greater probability of succeeding as either a Presidential or VP candidate in the general election, but also brings with it a great deal of baggage. Obama's substantial Israeli lobby support is, I would expect, an important part of his political calculus now – to name just one example.
Both Paul and Obama seem to have a better connection to the 'lower and middle' classes that comprise over 90% of our nation (depending on your definition, of course, read on). Congressman Paul spent decades delivering the babies of young, growing families. Senator Obama quit a law firm to follow his heart-felt calling to social work in struggling Chicago neighborhoods. The surprise and disbelief on his opponent's face last week when he asked if they realized that less than 6% of the country makes more than $97,000 (the income point that was being portrayed as 'working middle class') was just priceless – and for me, very telling. Most politicians with the means to compete at this national level are so far removed from the average citizen that it is simply unreal. But Paul and Obama – through their vocational choices – have a far greater understanding than average.
I've discussed some of Obama's multiple strengths before, but I haven't said much about Paul and he has become the candidate I support most strongly. I'll discuss them both more in future posts. Today I'd like to introduce Paul.
As a Latter-Day Saint my favorite parts of the Paul message are:
1. The Constitution is an inspired document that we have all pledged to uphold. We should follow it, and if we do not intend to, we should be honest about that and discuss it.
2. We are a Christian nation and should reasonably be expected to follow the precepts Christ taught. If we live as an example to the world, we will do far more good than if we attempt to force such values at the barrel of a gun.
3. Debt is real and must be reckoned with. The sooner the better. Denial doesn't make it go away. As Paul said the other day "My personal finances would be very good if I was borrowing $1 million a month. But someday the bills will come due." Key components in the Paul platform are reckoning with our astronomically frightening debt and fostering an atmosphere in which individuals and families could do the same. By at least one measure, simply fulfilling our current debt obligations would require $175,000 from each man, woman, and child in the nation. I don't know about you, but I won't *earn* that much this year . . . and neither will my wife or sons. The vast majority of that debt is from our ever-increasing misadventures in foreign policy. The fact that – like most debt – it's only increasing is not good. Furthermore, much of our debt is on loan from 'less-than-friendly' nations like China.
4. Individual responsibility is liberating and requisite. As nations, communities, families, and individuals we should be promoting liberty and responsibilty. Paul believes that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. should be free of our national aid grants that purchase their military hardware and their indebtedness. They could then work out agreements that made more sense in the region and weren't complicated by pandering for our financial aid. [It is assumed by some in the media that this would benefit the Arab countries more than Israel, but there are a number of groups – even within Israel – arguing the reverse. Paul's consistency on the issue frees Israel's hand. Also it prevents the US from propping up dictators that surround them – like the $10 billion dollars and F16 aircraft we just sent Mushariff in Pakistan . . . not to mention all those years alternating propping up Iran and Iraq.]
Likewise, Ron Paul strongly advocates helping individuals and families break free of becoming dependent on government aid. He contends, quite convincingly, that if we were more rational in our foreign policy we would save so much money that not only would government welfare projects actually be solvent but further, individual Americans would see more money in their own pockets – which is an important step in reducing the number of people who become dependent on government aid.
5. Finally, for Ron Paul, every individual soul has worth and should not be dismissed with a label or attacked with a collective slander. When Ron Paul talks about our schoolchildren, soldiers, or immigrants, or the citizens in Iraq, Israel, Mexico, or Darfur – he has the same message. He doesn't need to tailor his message to appeal more to the Arab League or to the WTO or to Iowa veterans. If you listen to his reasoned wisdom on Iraq, for instance, you find that he has concern for both our valiant young men and women being sent into battle and the innocents that sometimes find themselves 'collateral damage'. He is not a weak pacifist or an isolationist. Indeed he strongly advocated going after bin Laden and al Queda – and still does – (remember when that was a shared goal?). But he believes that each use of our considerable might should be reasoned, clearly laid out, and executed quickly and judiciously.
Despite not being in the back pocket of any large and influential organizations, Ron Paul's message is so rational, so 'in touch with the people', so consistent, and so, well, "good" that he literally has the largest grass-roots support any presidential candidate has ever seen. His supporters put up signs and spend hours creating you-tube videos, writing letters to the editor, etc. Regardless of what you think of such efforts, please take a couple of minutes to watch one short exemplary fan-made video. Paul's words are clear and speak for themselves better than any summary I could attempt.
The two candidates that I find most compelling, given my particular values and concerns, are Barack Obama and Ron Paul. They are similar in many ways and I probably could support either of them in the general election.
Each of them talk with sincerity about unity, honesty, communication, and freedom.
At present, Paul gets the edge in my book. Paul is taking the much more difficult road, however, with his principled stance against special interest and lobbying funds – and consequently his actual message and platform are much less well-known.
Obama has plenty of mainstream corporate and lobbying support which assures him a greater probability of succeeding as either a Presidential or VP candidate in the general election, but also brings with it a great deal of baggage. Obama's substantial Israeli lobby support is, I would expect, an important part of his political calculus now – to name just one example.
Both Paul and Obama seem to have a better connection to the 'lower and middle' classes that comprise over 90% of our nation (depending on your definition, of course, read on). Congressman Paul spent decades delivering the babies of young, growing families. Senator Obama quit a law firm to follow his heart-felt calling to social work in struggling Chicago neighborhoods. The surprise and disbelief on his opponent's face last week when he asked if they realized that less than 6% of the country makes more than $97,000 (the income point that was being portrayed as 'working middle class') was just priceless – and for me, very telling. Most politicians with the means to compete at this national level are so far removed from the average citizen that it is simply unreal. But Paul and Obama – through their vocational choices – have a far greater understanding than average.
I've discussed some of Obama's multiple strengths before, but I haven't said much about Paul and he has become the candidate I support most strongly. I'll discuss them both more in future posts. Today I'd like to introduce Paul.
As a Latter-Day Saint my favorite parts of the Paul message are:
1. The Constitution is an inspired document that we have all pledged to uphold. We should follow it, and if we do not intend to, we should be honest about that and discuss it.
2. We are a Christian nation and should reasonably be expected to follow the precepts Christ taught. If we live as an example to the world, we will do far more good than if we attempt to force such values at the barrel of a gun.
3. Debt is real and must be reckoned with. The sooner the better. Denial doesn't make it go away. As Paul said the other day "My personal finances would be very good if I was borrowing $1 million a month. But someday the bills will come due." Key components in the Paul platform are reckoning with our astronomically frightening debt and fostering an atmosphere in which individuals and families could do the same. By at least one measure, simply fulfilling our current debt obligations would require $175,000 from each man, woman, and child in the nation. I don't know about you, but I won't *earn* that much this year . . . and neither will my wife or sons. The vast majority of that debt is from our ever-increasing misadventures in foreign policy. The fact that – like most debt – it's only increasing is not good. Furthermore, much of our debt is on loan from 'less-than-friendly' nations like China.
4. Individual responsibility is liberating and requisite. As nations, communities, families, and individuals we should be promoting liberty and responsibilty. Paul believes that Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc. should be free of our national aid grants that purchase their military hardware and their indebtedness. They could then work out agreements that made more sense in the region and weren't complicated by pandering for our financial aid. [It is assumed by some in the media that this would benefit the Arab countries more than Israel, but there are a number of groups – even within Israel – arguing the reverse. Paul's consistency on the issue frees Israel's hand. Also it prevents the US from propping up dictators that surround them – like the $10 billion dollars and F16 aircraft we just sent Mushariff in Pakistan . . . not to mention all those years alternating propping up Iran and Iraq.]
Likewise, Ron Paul strongly advocates helping individuals and families break free of becoming dependent on government aid. He contends, quite convincingly, that if we were more rational in our foreign policy we would save so much money that not only would government welfare projects actually be solvent but further, individual Americans would see more money in their own pockets – which is an important step in reducing the number of people who become dependent on government aid.
5. Finally, for Ron Paul, every individual soul has worth and should not be dismissed with a label or attacked with a collective slander. When Ron Paul talks about our schoolchildren, soldiers, or immigrants, or the citizens in Iraq, Israel, Mexico, or Darfur – he has the same message. He doesn't need to tailor his message to appeal more to the Arab League or to the WTO or to Iowa veterans. If you listen to his reasoned wisdom on Iraq, for instance, you find that he has concern for both our valiant young men and women being sent into battle and the innocents that sometimes find themselves 'collateral damage'. He is not a weak pacifist or an isolationist. Indeed he strongly advocated going after bin Laden and al Queda – and still does – (remember when that was a shared goal?). But he believes that each use of our considerable might should be reasoned, clearly laid out, and executed quickly and judiciously.
Despite not being in the back pocket of any large and influential organizations, Ron Paul's message is so rational, so 'in touch with the people', so consistent, and so, well, "good" that he literally has the largest grass-roots support any presidential candidate has ever seen. His supporters put up signs and spend hours creating you-tube videos, writing letters to the editor, etc. Regardless of what you think of such efforts, please take a couple of minutes to watch one short exemplary fan-made video. Paul's words are clear and speak for themselves better than any summary I could attempt.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Some Potential Hypocrisy in Romney's Talk
Romney is weakened a bit in his potential to give a JFK-like straight-talk about his private religion – and how it should in no way influence people to discriminate against the job he could do as a public executive. This is because – despite his apparent sincerity and dedication in his private religious observance – he seems to be overlooking the gravity of one of his key public failings in that observance. And his advisors may actually be correct that consequently he would do better to play it down, rather than highlight it.
The sad fact of the matter is that Romney's own blatant discrimination against Muslims in general [for political gain] – and his facile echoings of the exaggerations, slanders, and lies leveled against Islam generally – have hobbled him as a moral authority in speaking of respect for religious freedom in American politics.
Without doubt, there would be some hypocrisy in Romney going before the American people and talking up the cherished freedom of religion that we all enjoy. It would be disingenuous to propose that he strictly embodies his own religious creed that
Furthermore, contrary to some, I have been impressed with nearly every instance where I've seen him pressed on Mormon doctrine, culture, and beliefs. His knowledge, practice, and well-spoken answers leave me sincerely impressed with Mitt as one attempting to live as a "Latter Day Saint". It is no wonder that he has served in various ecclesiastical leadership positions and I am well satisfied that he has done as well as anyone can in those capacities – which is no small feat. And a great sacrifice which few outside the faith are likely to be aware of.
On the other hand, I've never met a perfect person and consequently I've never known a perfect Mormon. Tragically, one of the only public failings that I've seen evinced in Mitt Romney coincides bafflingly with the question of religious bigotry. [His other public failings seem inextricably linked with this. As much as I like Mitt the person, many of his weaknesses are right where I think our nation's leadership is most lacking at the moment.]
Following lock-step in the dubious advice of such Washington luminaries as Cofer Black (VP of Blackwater) and Norman Podhoretz (publicly "praying" that we bomb Iran regardless of diplomacy), Mitt Romney has made anti-Muslim-defamation a key plank in his presidential platform. As Massachusetts governor he proposed specifically wiretapping every Mosque suspected of preaching "hate" and investigating every University student from a known Islamic nation. As a presidential candidate he has talked numerous times about the imminent danger of a present war that will end only with a Muslim 'caliphate.' Consciously or not, he is a key figure spreading the fear that Muslims generally advocate the violent overthrow of the world's nations in order to unite under a pure Islamic leader. And he is using that fear to pander to the frightened for their votes.
There is something profoundly wrong with promulgating the known falsehood that the Muslim religion *itself* is filled with hatred, blasphemous genocidal justification, and dangerous fanatical calls to 'jihad' – and then asking the American people to overlook any of the probably over-wrought falsehoods about his own religion that they may have heard.
Indeed, almost every world religion can be painted as dangerous and full of fanatics. Ironically, Muslims share many of the same criticisms as the Jews and the Christians. The Old Testament has a great number of frighteningly black or white calls for God's People to entirely wipe out another nation, for instance, or stone – to death – an apparent sinner. Those passages are certainly not, in my opinion, precisely representative of the larger text. And neither are the few similar passages in the Koran.
Nevertheless, you can always find a modern rabbi, or Christian preacher [with an actual following] who emphasizes such frightening passages in ways that the majority of Jews or Christians would be quick to repudiate. Additionally, you don't have to look very far in the past to find Christian [or Jewish] leadership colluding with (or at least appeasing) evil madmen intent on murdering innocent populations of people to make political statements. The local Catholic leadership's relationship in Germany and Spain with Hitler and Franco, respectively, are just two well-known examples. Despite what some will say are crucial differences inherent in the Muslim faith that the 'politically correct' crowd is glossing over, it simply is not so.
Given his religious heritage, I find it especially disturbing that Romney would embrace such obvious distortion and bigotry about another faith. A century and a half ago, his religious ancestors found such fears and slanders of their own beliefs magnified to the point that the surrounding populations in Missouri and Illinois were agitated to violence against the Mormons generally. Much of it was later found to be orchestrated by evil-intentioned politicians and mis-informed, but well-intentioned, religious people.
If Mitt Romney wants to offer "True Strength for America's Future", he would do well to consider if the founders had divine inspiration in protecting diverse religious freedoms and why it was that stunning portion of Joseph's Smith's letter [written to John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat – and containing a resolute defense of the sanctity of individual religious thought in Article 11 –] was canonized in his personal religious tradition.
Unfortunately, it is clear that Romney is so far down the road of defamation against a particular religious tradition – so contrary to both his own private religious conviction and what he must ask of the general populace for himself – that he cannot in all sincerity speak of it effectively during this campaign.
The sad fact of the matter is that Romney's own blatant discrimination against Muslims in general [for political gain] – and his facile echoings of the exaggerations, slanders, and lies leveled against Islam generally – have hobbled him as a moral authority in speaking of respect for religious freedom in American politics.
Without doubt, there would be some hypocrisy in Romney going before the American people and talking up the cherished freedom of religion that we all enjoy. It would be disingenuous to propose that he strictly embodies his own religious creed that
"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."In saying this, let me emphasize that I am not questioning his faithfulness as a Mormon. Indeed, I've commented many times that I think Mitt Romney is an excellent example of a faithful Mormon for the public eye. He is positive, cheerful, sober, intelligent, hard-working, and – very impressive to me as a father of four boys – appears to have the strong support of five remarkably successful sons. His relationship with his wife and children is a strong testament to me of his character. One that can simply not be dismissed.
Furthermore, contrary to some, I have been impressed with nearly every instance where I've seen him pressed on Mormon doctrine, culture, and beliefs. His knowledge, practice, and well-spoken answers leave me sincerely impressed with Mitt as one attempting to live as a "Latter Day Saint". It is no wonder that he has served in various ecclesiastical leadership positions and I am well satisfied that he has done as well as anyone can in those capacities – which is no small feat. And a great sacrifice which few outside the faith are likely to be aware of.
On the other hand, I've never met a perfect person and consequently I've never known a perfect Mormon. Tragically, one of the only public failings that I've seen evinced in Mitt Romney coincides bafflingly with the question of religious bigotry. [His other public failings seem inextricably linked with this. As much as I like Mitt the person, many of his weaknesses are right where I think our nation's leadership is most lacking at the moment.]
Following lock-step in the dubious advice of such Washington luminaries as Cofer Black (VP of Blackwater) and Norman Podhoretz (publicly "praying" that we bomb Iran regardless of diplomacy), Mitt Romney has made anti-Muslim-defamation a key plank in his presidential platform. As Massachusetts governor he proposed specifically wiretapping every Mosque suspected of preaching "hate" and investigating every University student from a known Islamic nation. As a presidential candidate he has talked numerous times about the imminent danger of a present war that will end only with a Muslim 'caliphate.' Consciously or not, he is a key figure spreading the fear that Muslims generally advocate the violent overthrow of the world's nations in order to unite under a pure Islamic leader. And he is using that fear to pander to the frightened for their votes.
There is something profoundly wrong with promulgating the known falsehood that the Muslim religion *itself* is filled with hatred, blasphemous genocidal justification, and dangerous fanatical calls to 'jihad' – and then asking the American people to overlook any of the probably over-wrought falsehoods about his own religion that they may have heard.
Indeed, almost every world religion can be painted as dangerous and full of fanatics. Ironically, Muslims share many of the same criticisms as the Jews and the Christians. The Old Testament has a great number of frighteningly black or white calls for God's People to entirely wipe out another nation, for instance, or stone – to death – an apparent sinner. Those passages are certainly not, in my opinion, precisely representative of the larger text. And neither are the few similar passages in the Koran.
Nevertheless, you can always find a modern rabbi, or Christian preacher [with an actual following] who emphasizes such frightening passages in ways that the majority of Jews or Christians would be quick to repudiate. Additionally, you don't have to look very far in the past to find Christian [or Jewish] leadership colluding with (or at least appeasing) evil madmen intent on murdering innocent populations of people to make political statements. The local Catholic leadership's relationship in Germany and Spain with Hitler and Franco, respectively, are just two well-known examples. Despite what some will say are crucial differences inherent in the Muslim faith that the 'politically correct' crowd is glossing over, it simply is not so.
Given his religious heritage, I find it especially disturbing that Romney would embrace such obvious distortion and bigotry about another faith. A century and a half ago, his religious ancestors found such fears and slanders of their own beliefs magnified to the point that the surrounding populations in Missouri and Illinois were agitated to violence against the Mormons generally. Much of it was later found to be orchestrated by evil-intentioned politicians and mis-informed, but well-intentioned, religious people.
If Mitt Romney wants to offer "True Strength for America's Future", he would do well to consider if the founders had divine inspiration in protecting diverse religious freedoms and why it was that stunning portion of Joseph's Smith's letter [written to John Wentworth of the Chicago Democrat – and containing a resolute defense of the sanctity of individual religious thought in Article 11 –] was canonized in his personal religious tradition.
Unfortunately, it is clear that Romney is so far down the road of defamation against a particular religious tradition – so contrary to both his own private religious conviction and what he must ask of the general populace for himself – that he cannot in all sincerity speak of it effectively during this campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
