Puritan or Pilgrim

My friend Ashok and I were at Starbucks today and along the way I mentioned to him my research I’ve begun on the Puritans. It lead to a question that he had for me about the difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans. With it having been Thanksgiving a few weeks ago I think it is an important topic to discuss.

The Protestant Reformation had already hit England in many ways before Henry VIII formally separated from Rome. The Scottish were exposed to the Calvinist brand of Protestantism and formed the Presbyterian Church. Their beliefs and ideology spread down into mainland England in the aftermath of the English Reformation. There were pockets in England who believed that the King had not gone far enough in reforming the Church of England. Among those who believed this were a group that I will generally call English Calvinists. This group was made up of the Puritans and the Pilgrims; religious cousins if you will. Both groups subscribed to Calvin’s particular brand of Christianity and believed that the Church of England needed to be purified. The distinguishing difference between the two was what this purification meant. The Pilgrims quickly became a more radical brand of English Calvinism going so far as to flee England for the Netherlands.

The Pilgrims believed that the Church of England was beyond salvation and utterly corrupt. As an extension, because the King of England was also now the head of the Church of England the state itself was corrupt. The Puritans on the other hand held out faith that King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth and King James would all do their part to purify the Church more and more, eventually riding it of the Catholic influences. Puritans became integral members of their respective towns, including becoming political leaders. Puritans would even infiltrate the King’s own privy council with men like John Locke. And while members of the Puritan church did eventually leave England for the New World, their actions once they arrived separate them from the Pilgrims.

The Pilgrims received a charter to establish a colony in Northern Virginia along the Hudson Bay and immediately set sail for the New World along with others who they called “Strangers” on board the Mayflower. When they arrived the men on board decided to write a compact for the governance of their new colony. This compact was the first such document written by the people in the new world and while it was not a constitution, it was very much a proto-constitution. It also is significant because it did not come from the King nor Parliament and the men who wrote it did not have legal authority to do so. However, the Pilgrims had taken it upon themselves to govern their colony as they saw fit rather than depending upon the corrupt government in London to do so.

Unlike the Pilgrims, the Puritans did not write their own compact when they arrived in the New World in the 1630′s. Instead they had their own charter. And while they did have a government, it was not in the same manner we would recognize as in New Plymouth. Eventually such compacts would be written by Puritans in Connecticut, though. In all the Puritans were seeking religious separation but not necessarily legal or political separation from the state. Their charter was revoked in the 1690′s and the New Plymouth colony and the  Massachusetts Bay colony were merged.

Published in: on December 2, 2011 at 00:48  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Emergence of the American Military Power

Have you ever wondered where the military power of the United States came from? We haven’t always been a super power capable of destroying our enemies, our friends, and ourselves.  For most of the early years of the American republic we had to rely on allies to assists us in our military campaigns. The French aided us in the American Revolution, although we did have minor successes prior to their entry into the war. We fought to a stalemate with the English during the War of 1812, yet our Nation’s Capital was burned down.

We were able to defeat the Mexicans during the Mexican-American War, but we still weren’t a super power. We had to rely on the British to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that the Western Hemisphere is closed to European Colonization. Yet, one event in American History stands alone as ushering in the advent of American military supremacy.

During the Civil War advancements in technology were made that made obsolete all other militaries in the world. The mini ball made for more accurate gun fire, destroying a military fighting style that had spanned centuries. The CSS Hunley was only the second major attempt by Americans to create submarine power (the USS Turtle was used during the American Revolution, which was a one man submarine that operated on a similar concept as the Hunley.) And ultimately, the clash of the Iron Clads (CSS Merrimack & USS Monitor) made all other navies in the world obsolete. By the end of the Civil War there were over 1 Million soldiers in America’s Army. Within a couple years that number would drop significantly to 125,000 military personal.

In the wake of the Civil War and the assassination, and attempted assassination, of President Abraham Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State Seward two nations attempted to capitalize on a war torn nation. Emperor Louis Napoleon III had fashioned himself as a French Andrew Jackson, but like his famous ancestor became an Emperor. With the coup that destroyed the French Second Republic, Napoleon sought to take advantage of a perceived weak America.

Napoleon conspired with the Arch-Duke Maximilian of Austria to take over Mexico and create an Empire that would threaten the existence of the United States. Secretary Seward recovered from a carriage accident and being stabbed in a failed assassination attempt the night Lincoln was shot by Booth to challenge Napoleon’s plan. General Grant sent 50,000 soldiers and General Sheridan to the Texas-Mexican border to secure America from an attack. In the mean time Seward sent General Schofield to deter Napoleon from his plan. Publicly Seward published a letter to the Emperor that was more diplomatic than what Schofield was sent to deliver. Napoleon backed down and the Mexicans murdered the Arch-Duke.

In the mean time, the British were attempting to secure Canada from the United States. War was England was eminent during the Civil War, it was only Ambassador Charles Francis Adams  (Son of John Q. Adams and grandson of John Adams) that helped prevent war from breaking out. The British, Sir John A.  MacDonald created a plan to create the Kingdom of Canada, a confederacy of the Canada territories. When northerners along the border cried for war, the English monarch Queen Victoria signed into law a bill creating the Dominion of Canada; regardless, the damage was done and a permanent reminder of the English monarchy was created. And in a major coup for the United States, Secretary of State Seward purchased Alaska from the Russians. This purchased, declared “Seward’s Folly” and “Seward’s Ice Box” was actually a tactical victory for the United States. With Alaska, the United States surrounded Canada from the South and the West. The arctic circle to the north meant that Canada only had it’s Eastern boarder free from America. In the event of a war with England, the United States could secure Canada and blockade it’s Eastern shore ports.

The United States came out of the Civil War a military power house. Over the next thirty years the US would continue to grow stronger as the industrial revolution took hold. By the time the United States went to war with Spain she had one of the strongest navies in the world, and was able to defeat the once mighty Spanish. Following the destruction of Europe in World War I, the United States stood as the most complete and most powerful military in the world. It wouldn’t be until the end of the Second World War that the U.S. was officially a super power, with enough fire power to destroy the world.

Published in: on June 18, 2010 at 19:32  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My way, or the highway.

I want to take a moment and discuss something that has been bothering me concerning contemporary politics. As many of you know I will sometimes do this and today just seems like one of those days.

Recently the state of Arizona passed a law giving police in their state authority to challenge anyone they believe is not a legal resident of the United States. The reaction from many states and cities has been negative towards Arizona. Cities such as San Diego have voted to boycott all business with the state over this law. Arizona residents in return have quickly pulled back on planned trips to the city; this has caused the city tourism to lose upwards of $10 Million. Other cities have voted to boycott, and in some cases the backlash out of Arizona has caused many  more to rethink their vote before ruining their our economy.

This brings up an interesting question that can be related back to a number of hot button issues currently in the political sphere. But back to Arizona for one second. The Federal government has a law currently on the books that does essentially what Arizona’s new law does; except the Federal Government ignores their law. A basic principle of politics found in the heart of the Declaration of Independence is, “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.” Now the purpose of our government, the ends for which we established it in 1787, are clearly written into our Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For many of Arizona’s residents the Federal government has failed to uphold its ends for insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defence. If liberals haven’t noticed lately there is a drug war going on in Mexico that spills into the border towns of the United States. Illegals are smuggling drugs into our nation helping to destroy our domestic tranquility. All the while our Federal Government is sitting back and passing legislation for something Americans have clearly shown we do not want. What else has Arizona, or any state, have to do besides take up what the Federal Government refuses.

Back to the point though, it appears that anytime Conservatives win the day on a hot button issue the only thing liberals can do is say that they are racists, sexists, homophobic rednecks. It appears that there is only one way when it comes to Liberals, their way. Conservatives aren’t innocent either, at least when they don’t like something they don’t automatically start calling people by slurs. When the State of California voted by popular referendum to ban homosexual marriage the liberal response was that Conservative nut jobs who hate people were behind it. In Massachusetts when they allowed for homosexual marriage, Conservatives argued that it was unnecessary and immoral. Conservatives take the old Christian saying of, “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Liberals just want to hate, even though they preach we should love everyone.

The President has even weighed in on this issue warning college graduates to watch out for false information as he sees it. This was the same President Obama that wanted people to spy on their neighbors who were preaching “falsly” about the health care bill. There is no room for debate, or for discussion in the Liberal way of thinking. It is only their way and if you don’t agree with it then you’ll be left for dead on the side of the road; but not before they humiliate,prejudice and libel you. Their idea of freedom of speech is not what the founders envisioned; the Founding notion was to allow for free, open and public political discourse. The belief you could libel, slander, or even blasphem was out of the question for the Founders. And yet Liberals do just that and when Conservatives push back they cry foul. They are offended by the idea that anyone could possibly hold an opposing point of view. Conservatives can be just as bad, but at least they allow for those views to be voiced.

Published in: on May 17, 2010 at 10:51  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Themes in American Culture–100th Post!!

The notion of demonic presence is as old as humanity. Likewise, the idea that man can be changed into a demonic creature is similarly as old as humanity. The most prominent of these creatures that man may be changed into is the Vampire. Traditionally, the vampire has been a creature of the night, generally grotesque looking and sometimes in the form of an incubus or succubus. With the rise of Christianity those legends were often morphed to fit Christian understanding of evil in the world. And while the stories of vampires have spanned every epoch in human history, none have had the effect of Bram Stocker’s Dracula. This late Romantic period novel brought to the forefront the legends of the Romanian vampire in the person of Romania’s most prominent hero Vlad Dracula. American obsession with vampires is no less than that of Europeans. Our own understanding of vampires has been influenced by themes in American history dating back to the earliest explorers of our shores. Spanish and French obsession with finding the fountain of youth, English religious fears of eternal damnation and in particular those demands of society in regards to sexuality have all influenced our understanding as Americans, and directly influenced our view of Vampires. From Dracula’s earliest appearances on American cinema in 1931, to the present-day vampires of TV/Book/Movies such as Interview with the Vampire, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, True Blood, Vampire Diaries and Twilight we have seen vampires as young, vibrant, and gorgeous creatures akin to angels.

When Spanish and French explorers first reached our shores in the early part of the 16th century they were told stories of wondrous things by the Native Americans whom they encountered. Among those stories were things such as the City of Gold, and the Fountain of Youth. Ponce de Leon, a Spanish conquistador, heard stories of the Fountain of Youth from the inhabitants of Puerto Rico. He eventually found himself on the American mainland in Florida searching for the famed fountain. Unfortunately, he died in vain trying to find the source of eternal youth and beauty. That search has never stopped for Americans, as the billion dollar a year industry of plastic surgery promises to make the old look young, the ugly look beautiful. Somewhere down the long line of Vampire legend, a creature that began in some cultures as an incubus or succubus and later became corporal in the form of a demonic ugly creature became the angelic, youthful looking creature we know and love today. As late as the 1920’s, the German movie Nosferatu showed the famed Count Dracula in the form of something akin to Joss Whedon’s “Uber Vamp” from Buffy the Vampire Slayer season 7.

Yet when America released Dracula in 1931 Bela Lugosi was far from the creature portrayed in century old myths. That trend has continued to this day, rarely is an American movie or television show depicting vampires willing to show us a Nosferatu vampire. If they do, then the vampire is typically a bad guy or at least not American. Our representation of vampires as young, typically no older than 30 and beautiful demonstrates a trend in American history. As a nation we are young compared to our European counterparts, and even our colonization began after most of the Latin American countries or even Canada was colonized. We see ourselves as a young, vibrant people capable of those same exploits that are common among the young. This is especially true since the 1960’s and the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. In particular, the vampires of the more popular legends of recent times have almost unanimously been turned in their early 20s. This is especially true for Louis in Interview with the Vampire, Angel and Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Edward from the Twilight Saga to name just a few.

Yet, Vampires in American popular culture also represent another theme found consistently in American history. When the territory of what are now the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut were first colonized by Englishmen, those settles came with the express desire to worship God according to their own religious beliefs. Coming from the same vein as religious reformer John Calvin, the English settlers of those present-day states believed in double predestination, the belief that one is either damned to Hell or saved, and lead to a string of thought concerning salvation. This is most evident in Nathanial Hawthrone’s epic work The Scarlet Letter, where the main characters struggle with their decision to commit adultery and how to regain God’s favor after committing such a grievous sin. In part, Hawthrone was attempting to exercise his own demons and regain God’s favor for his family who had participated in the Salem Witch Trials (his ancestor was one of the Judges.) This theme of redemption and salvation has continued in American culture in the popular form of vampires. Anne Rice’s Louis struggles with questions concerning his own status of whether he is damned or saved, and strives to live a life worthy of salvation. Joss Whedon’s Angel and Spike go a step further than any other vampire in lore by regaining their immortal soul. Even other vampires such as those found in the Twilight Saga, the Vampire Diaries and the Southern Vampire (Sookie Stackhouse) books all struggle with their own impending damnation in the same manner as Hawthrone’s characters do in The Scarlet Letter.

Whether explicitly religious or not, the question of salvation continuously comes up throughout American culture. For example, in a speech given on board the ship that would take the first settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop delivered what is possibly the most well known lines, “For we shall be as a city upon a hill…” These lines have been present in the American conscience and even appeared over three hundred years later, this time uttered by President Ronald Reagan. The idea that America was to be a New Jerusalem, that example for all other nations to esteem to and receive salvation is important to understanding America. The vampire went from being a creature of the devil, devoid of any and all chance of forgiveness and salvation in old world myths to the American example of the utterly damned creature defying his nature and attaining salvation. In particular, this theme is found since Anne Rice first published her tale Interview with the Vampire. Since then Joss Whedon introduced not one but two vampires who are able to regain the one thing that makes humans unique amongst all other creatures: their souls. The vampire has become for Americans a vehicle for working out or problems with our future after we die.

America, the land of infinite possibilities, has found itself also as the place where one can find eternal youth and final salvation. The old world struggle for eternal beauty and salvation have been personified by the American vampire and intrinsically woven into the very character of America. These two themes are so interwoven into the American Dream that they are the basis upon which we strive for the flashy car, the expensive house, the beautiful spouse and everything else that goes into the American Dream. The myth of the Vampire is as old as man himself; and in contemporary America we have made the vampire the archetype by which we can work out our unfulfilled desires for ever lasting life.

Published in: on March 18, 2010 at 17:04  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Alienation in Post World War America

World War II ended with the surrender of the Japanese Empire in August 1945 leaving a wake of destruction on almost every continent. America was elated, not only had they defeated the Nazis but the Japanese were defeated as well. Yet, America’s place in the world changed as a result of the war in a way very few people would have thought possible. Only an up and coming nation in the last World War, the United States emerged from World War II as the preeminent world power. Amidst the jubilation of victory in both theaters of war, Americans had to come to grips not only with America’s new place in the world, but with what had happened in the war to America. The story of Holden Caulfield in The Catcher in the Rye demonstrates the alienation some particular Americans felt in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The beginning of The Catcher in the Rye takes the reader to a boarding school and a character named Holden Caulfield. Holden is arguably one of the most controversial characters in literature, but his story is an important one as it is the story of America after World War II. Holden’s alienation from the rest of the world is central in his story. Throughout most of the story Holden is unable to find the good in the world and insists that everyone he knows or meets is a phony. Holden is a confused young man who is attempting to reconcile the world of his childhood with the world of his young adulthood. At sixteen when the story takes place, Holden was born two years after the stock market crashed and was still too young when the United States entered the Second World War in December, 1941. America, in a lot of ways, has grown up rapidly in the span of Holden’s short life.

The main antagonists in Holden’s life are his roommate Stradlater, his neighbor Ackley, a friend from home Sally, and a pimp and a prostitute he meets while staying in New York. In each case, the antagonists choose to ignore the realities of life by distracting themselves with sex, money or theater. Holden faults each character for being a phony, and considers his dead brother Allie, and his younger sister Phoebe as two of the only real people he has ever met. Holden has been affected by the war and its aftermath and maintains a child-like opinion of the world. In fact, he states, “Certain things they should stay the way they are. You ought to be able to stick them in those big glass cases and just leave them alone.”[1] Holden is alienated from those who are his age, or close because of his own inability to grow up. The various encounters Holden ha leave him more alienated than before. In the case of Sally, Holden contacts her and makes a date only to alienate himself from her by saying:  “You give me a royal pain in the ass…”[2] Holden is completely unable to maintain friendships and continues to draw further and further away from the world.

As Holden is unable to maintain friendships with anyone he meets, he is also a contradiction. At the beginning of the book he states, “If there’s one thing I hate, it’s the movies.”[3] And yet he goes to see a movie at Radio City after his date with Sally. He goes into the bar at his hotel and has a low opinion of everything about it from where they seat him, to the band, to the patrons.[4] Holden constantly belittles people, places and things only to turn around and immerse himself in them. This further alienates him from the world and people around him as they view him as an immature person.[5] His sense of superiority, which results in his alienation, prevents Holden from having any meaningful relationships with anyone aside from his sister and dead brother Allie.

Holden is so disillusioned with the world around him that the only thing he can think to do is protect those who he views as innocent. Holden’s depression is lifted whenever he is around kids. The first instance the reader sees this is in the streets of New York. On his way to find a record store open on Sundays, Holden follows a family of three. The parents are on the sidewalk and immediately gain the disapproval of Holden when he says, “They looked sort of poor, which implies that Holden views the family, at least the parents, as beneath him. The child, however, entertains Holden as he is walking behind the family. The child is in the street singing, “‘If a body catch a body coming through the rye.’” The child and song make Holden, “feel better. It made me feel not so depressed any more.”[6] Holden is not alienated from children the way he is from those closer in age to him because he is able to find a truth in children that doesn’t exist for him in his contemporaries.

Holden’s alienation goes even further, to a desire to remove himself completely from society. At first, Holden pleads with Sally to, “drive up to Massachusetts or Vermont….We’ll stay in these cabin camps and stuff like that till the dough runs out…I could get a job somewhere and we could live somewhere with a brook and all….I could chop wood in the wintertime and all.”[7] His feeling of superiority has alienated him not only from any meaningful relationships but also a desire to quit society almost all together. Later on he says, “Everybody’d think I was just a poor deaf-mute bastard and they’d leave me alone. They’d let me put gas and oil in their stupid cars, and they’d pay me a salary and all for it, and I’d build me a little cabin somewhere with the dough I made and live there the rest of my life.”[8] Both times, Holden suggests leaving society to live away from a world he doesn’t fully believe he belongs to.

Holden’s alienation also drives him to attempt to save those he believes he cares most about. In his first desire to leave society, he invites Sally to go with him only to alienate himself from her when she refuses to go with him. Holden also feels a need to assist a roommate at a previous school before he ultimately rejects him. His roommate Dick Slagle is poorer than Holden and doesn’t have as fancy of luggage as he has. As Holden describes the situation: “The thing is, it’s really hard to be roommates with people if your suitcases are much better than theirs…”[9] But he goes on to clarify, “You think if they’re intelligent and all, the other person, and have a good sense of humor, that they don’t give a damn whose suitcases are better, but they do.”[10] Holden both creates his own alienation, as in the case of Sally, and is a victim of society’s mandated alienation as was the case with the former roommate. Yet in both cases, Holden attempts to save that person from the phony world as Holden perceives it.

Finally, Holden’s struggle not to care about what others think or do and his desire to save people from their phoniness comes to a head. His sister Phoebe questions whether or not Holden actually likes anything, or if he simply hates everything.[11] As he avoids Phoebe’s questions, she finally prompts him, “All right, name something else. Name something you’d like to be.”[12] And it is here that Holden admits to his desire to protect children and to allow them to maintain their innocence when he tells Phoebe, “I’d just be the catcher in the rye and all.”[13] Holden’s alienation from friends closer in age; his hatred of cars and movies all stem from his own desire to return and protect the innocence of childhood.

Yet, it takes Holden until he has nearly broken down psychologically that he realizes he can’t protect everyone from everything. While on the way to  deliver a note to Phoebe at her school, Holden notices writing on the walls outside the school. He desires to protect the innocence of the children from the writing  and dreams of killing the person responsible for writing obscenities on the school’s walls. The second time he finds the obscenities, however, he realizes that it has been craved into the wall.[14] It is at this point that Holden comes to the realization, “If you had a million years to do it in, you couldn’t rub out even half the ‘Fuck you’ signs in the world. It’s impossible.”[15] He finally realizes that things won’t return to how they were when he was a child and life was simpler. Holden recognizes that the world is full of things he hates and wants to protect others from but it is a fool’s mission to try to protect the world from all the bad.

The story of Holden Caulfield could be analogous to the story of the United States after World War II. Like Holden, the United States was alienated from the rest of the world, including our allies. As the most powerful nation in the world, the United States had a responsibility not shared by her allies. Both the Soviet Union and the allies of the United States differed from the U.S.and did not seem to share many beliefs held by America. The United States, as well as Holden, had to come to grips with the reality of the world. Holden was never going to achieve living in a world where people were to be exactly as he wanted to be more ready to believe exactly what he believed. Holden is defined by his alienation from the world and weather he is finally able to reconcile himself with both the world and people around him.

[1] Salinger, J.D. The Catcher in the Rye(Boston: Little Brown and Company 1951) page 122.

[2] Ibid. 133

[3] Ibid. 2

[4] “they gave me a lousy table anyways…”, “The band was putrid”, “show-offy-looking guys with their dates.” Ibid. 69

[5] “Same old Caulfield. When are you going to grow up?” Ibid, 144

[6] Ibid. 115

[7] Ibid. 132

[8] Ibid. 199

[9] Ibid. 109

[10] Ibid.

[11] “You don’t like anything that’s happening.” Ibid. 169

[12] Ibid. 172

[13] Ibid. 173

[14] “I saw something that drove me crazy…”, “I went down by a different staircase….” Ibid. 201, 202

[15] Ibid.

 

Published in: on March 4, 2010 at 01:21  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On the Rightness of our Actions

As I approach my 100th post since beginning this blog, I wish to turn my attention to a serious of topics that I hope will culminate in an exceptional 100th post. With that said, I would like to turn our attention towards the topic of the rightness of our actions. Simply put, whether our actions can be judged morally correct or wrong in relation to their ends, or the action simply. The famous expression taken out of context from Niccolo Machiavelli is that, if the ends justify the means then they are morally acceptable. However, at what point does the end of our actions because judged solely on our means of attaining that end? This statement presupposes that there is nothing else by which to judge our actions. Can this, though, be the case? Friedrich Nietzsche supposes that there is nothing by which we can judge our actions, rather it is up to the Uebermensch to impose his own variety of morality. This question was brought to me through the television show The Secret Life of the American Teenager. As some of you know, I watch that show as well as others including fellow ABC Family show Greek.

To provide some background,  a few episodes back the main character Amy went on a date with a boy, named Jimmy, who she met at the beginning of this part of the season. Amy, fearing that things may become sexual and not wanting to take chances of becoming pregnant yet again acquired condoms. One thing lead to another and Jimmy found those condoms after him and Amy spent time discussing how they did not want to have sex until marriage. Amy was unaware that Jimmy found the condoms, and so when Jimmy stopped calling her she began to worry. Enter her “friends” who suggested that Jimmy didn’t like how Amy kisses, which upset her. The father of her son John, Ricky, attempted to reassure Amy before offering to let her “practice” kissing with him. She accepted the invitation. In the episode three weeks ago, Adrian, who is dating Ricky, found out that Amy was carrying condoms and began to suspect she was having sex. She immediately jumped to the conclusion that Amy and Ricky were having sex, which prompted Adrian to have sex with Amy’s ex-boyfriend Ben. Two episodes ago Adrian and Ricky confronted each other, and she informed him that she had sex with Ben to get back at him for having sex with Amy. Ricky responded by admitting, finally, that he and Amy had simply kissed.

Adrian’s belief is that the sex she had with Ben, the simple act of sex, is in itself not wrong. She also admitted that her having sex with Ben as a way of getting back at Ricky and Amy for allegedly having sex was also not wrong in of itself. Finally, she struggled with admitting that it was wrong even after finding out Ricky and Amy only kissed. This is what lead me to ponder the question of whether or not our actions simply must always be morally right, and whether or not our ends justify the actions we do take. In this instance, whether or not Adrian is correct in assuming that sex by itself is morally wrong, and whether sex as a means of getting back at someone for hurting you is itself wrong.

There are some actions that are themselves not morally wrong in and of themselves. Rather, we must look at the motive behind the act in order to find whether or not that act was acceptable. In this situation, we must look at the kind of sex rather than simply stating sex as sex itself is not morally wrong. However, sex outside of marriage is generally looked upon as being wrong and this is the kind of sex that Adrian and Ben engaged in. This leads to our general quandary, by what means can be determine that sex outside of marriage is wrong, and if we can determine what causes sex out of marriage to be wrong then we can determine if other actions can be judged based on the same principle.

By what measure can we determine sex outside of marriage to be wrong? Our first investigation must turn to the conventional law, often refered to by the Greek word nomoi. These are those laws created by man in his particular political situation. And since, at least in the United States, sex outside of marriage is not classified as illegal it cannot be wrong in accordance with American law. However, some acts are wrong based upon the assumption of the nomoi and therefore those actions can be judged solely based on whether or not the law prohibits them such as murder. The second source by which we can judge actions is through the revealed Law. That Law given to us by God. Since there are three Laws, the Old Law, the New Law and the Law of Islam, we must investigate whether any permit or prohibit premarital sex. Since it is commonly accepted by followers of the Law that premarital sex is in fact wrong, then we can assume that they receive this from the Law itself. This is the same for those things which the Law also explicitly prohibits.

Yet, what of those who are not followers of the Law? Those of non-revealed religions or those lacking faith all together. By what means can they determine the rightness of their actions? It would appear as though parts of the revealed Law are not only found in the books of religion, as there are those nations not followers of the Law that have nomoi akin to the Law. By what means was the Law revealed to them? Accordingly, there are two prime manners in which the Law is revealed to man and that is that it is implanted on his very soul or through his observation of nature. Since according to the revealed Law all things are created by the same God, it must be assumed that all living things are subject in part to the same law. It is found often in nature that some animals mate only with one partner for their entire life. Many pack animals have one male, with multiple females and often times only one female for procreation. In particular with wolves, there is an Alpha male and Alpha female, both are solely responsible for the continuation of their species with each other. Other animals, such as the Emperor Penguin, mates for life similar to the method by which humans have traditionally mated.  Therefore, if we may find examples in nature of the revealed Law then we must assume that it is revealed to all. We may therefore find whether or not our actions are right, not by their ends, but by the Law.

But what then of those people who will state, “But those animals were not married, they simply have sex with each other; can I then mate with only one person the rest of my life as they do?” But what is marriage except the act of procreation? God said unto Adam and Eve, “Go forth and multiple” signaling that they were bound together as man and wife. So to, according to both the nomoi and the Law, when two people get married they are not married until they consummate the marriage. Similarly one might state, “There are examples of animals who have sex with multiple partners, how then can we say that as humans we are expected to remain with only one person?” All living things have an impulse inscribed on their hearts to continue their species through the act of procreation. That impluse exists in human beings, but what makes us different than those animals is that we have the faculty of reason. Our reason controls our passions, and leads us to our right actions. Those who deny that there are overruling laws by which all living things must adhere are denying their reason in favor of their passions. As humans, we are called to advance our species in it’s highest form; quality rather than quantity. This is why God only created Adam and Eve, for if it was intended that man should procreate with multiple females then it would have been proper for God to create multiple females.

It is therefore clear that our actions are not  judged only by whether they right or wrong in relation to their ends, but that there is a standard by which we may judge our actions simply either through conventional law or the Law revealed to us either by religion or through nature, rather than in relation to their ends.

Published in: on March 3, 2010 at 01:19  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Nature of Government and of the United States as Affecting the Right to Secession

The question of Secession was raised immediately after the first Southern states began to leave the Union. President Abraham Lincoln ordered Federal troops to invade the South in hopes of unifying the nation. Following the war, Orestes Brownson wrote on the issue of whether or not Secession was in fact legal or constitutional. Secession is not constitutional, as Orestes Brownson argues in the American Republic, on the grounds that government itself is indissoluble.

Orestes Brownson divides his argument against Secession into four major themes: the origins of government, the constitution of government, the United States, and the United States Constitution. These four main arguments supply the basis upon which Brownson argues that secession is unconstitutional. In order to understand why secession is unconstitutional, it is necessary to examine Brownson’s four main arguments first.

The circumstances surrounding the secession of the southern states in 1860 stem from a long argument concerning which was superior, the state or federal government. The necessity of government and man’s place in society is self evident according to Brownson who argues, “Hence as man is nowhere found out of society, so nowhere is society found without government.”[1] As such, the question over whether or not man belongs in society and whether or not society requires government is put to rest by Brownson. From the ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle to the Enlightenment philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau the question of the origins of society and government have been argued.

Yet these philosophers do agree on at least a handful of axioms of government and man’s loyalty to government. Brownson sums up the responsibilities of government by stating:

“[Government] defines and protects the right of property, creates and maintains a medium in which religion can exert her supernatural energy, promotes learning, fosters science and art, advances civilization, and contributes as a powerful means to the fulfillment by man of the Divine purpose in his existence.”[2]

These axioms are agreed upon by most political philosophers throughout time, although the specific aim of government may be different. But as long as these are maintained and protected, the individual person in society is obligated to remain loyal to the society and government. As Thomas Hobbes might agree, a duly instituted regime has the authority to do as it pleases. However, if it fails to protect the people it is no longer legitimate. Tyranny is never legitimate. We are required to remain loyal as long as our liberty is secure.[3]

Yet, while the majority of political philosophy agrees that there are certain responsibilities of both society and the citizen, the origins of government differs drastically from one philosopher to the next. The six origins of government according to Brownson include:

Government originates in the right of the father to govern his child.

It originates in convention, and is a social compact.

It originates in the people, who, collectively taken, are sovereign.

Government springs from the spontaneous development of nature.

It derives its right from the immediate and express appointment of God.

From God through the Pope, or visible head of the spiritual society

From God through the people

From God through the natural law[4]

The first of these origins is taken directly from two sources, the first is Aristotle and the second is Sir Robert Filmer. Aristotle’s argument, stemming from book one of the Politics, demonstrates that the origins of society and government come from the family. Aristotle argues that because people wish to mimic the gods, they favor monarchy as their choice of government with the family ruled by the father, the village ruled by the eldest male, and the city ruled by the king. While Aristotle admits that other forms of government do exist, and may in fact be more desirable than monarchy, people will still naturally yearn for monarchy. This argument is also connected to Divine Right of Kings set forth most completely by Sir Robert Filmer.  Sir Robert Filmer, in his Patriarcha, makes an argument in favor of Divine Right monarchy stemming first from Adam’s sovereignty over his children. Brownson, however, disagrees both with Aristotle and Filmer by rejecting monarchy in favor for republican government. . “The distinctive mark of republicanism is the substitution of the state for the personal chief, and public authority for personal or private right.”[5] Governments based on the principle of fatherhood are despotic. Republicanism is the true government because the rulers rule for and on behalf of the state. Rulers who are proprietors of the land are not rulers. Aristotle is most famous for putting forth the argument that government stems from the family, is critiqued with the moderns who reject paternal rule. One must rule for the sake of the commonwealth.

Following the classical understanding, Brownson critiques the modern understanding of government as being a social compact. “The state, as defined by the elder Adams, is held to be a voluntary association of individuals. Individuals create civil society, and may uncreate it whenever they judge it advisable.” Brownson rejects the concept that society can be established and abolished at will and calls America out, “Prior to the Southern Rebellion, nearly every American asserted with Lafayette, ‘the sacred right of insurrection’ or revolution…”[6] However, sovereignty cannot be relinquished, neither by a state/nation nor by a person. The Enlightenment holds that people are sovereign in a state of nature and that they give up part of that sovereignty when they enter society. “But individuals cannot give up what they have not, and no individual has in himself the right to govern another.” Modern political philosophers suppose a state of nature, which supposes a social contract. Brownson rejects the social contract because man cannot willingly forfeit his rights and because man is bound into society. Furthermore, men in nature fail to be able to acquire the knowledge necessary to create a civil society.

While there are still four other origins of government according to political philosophy, the first two are the most important for the United States. The United States was born out of the modern understanding of government, the only enlightened government. The United States, as a result, was an independent nation and a republic before it declared independence from England. Brownson’s arguments against the ancient and modern assertion of the origins of government indicate that the United States as a society had to exist prior to the revolution. However, the question is not whether there is a United States but whether it formed as a collection of sovereign, independent nations or whether it formed as a single whole. The same principle applies to the society as it does to the individual: a sovereign society cannot give up its sovereignty. If this is the case, then the several states never gave up their sovereignty and the United States as a single entity never existed. Brownson argues against the individual sovereignty of the states by stating, “The colonies were all erected and endowed with their rights and powers by one and the same national authority, and the colonist were subjects of one and the same national sovereign.”[7]However, if the United States exists as a single entity it would be impossible for the states to be independently sovereign.[8] Thus, if the United States is a society, then the states would be inferior to the federal government. In this instance, the states would not be capable of secession from the Union because they are not sovereign nations in themselves.

The American Constitution, therefore, is the only element left in determining whether or not the southern states had a right to secession in 1861.   As discussed in his chapter on the origins of constitutions, a constitution is not something created, as man is a creature not a creator. Under the auspices of this same argument, the U.S. Constitution is understood by Brownson as, “Two-fold, written and unwritten, the constitution of the people and the constitution of the government.”[9] This unwritten constitution is what Brownson refers to as the Providential constitution. To Brownson, this Providential constitution is not something created but rather comes into existence along side the nation.[10] The American Providential constitution is unique to the United States and never seen elsewhere in the world. Our Constitution is made up of both sovereign and dependent states, and is neither a confederacy nor centralized state.[11] We are still yet one people divided into states but still united. “The Union and the States were born together, are inseparable in their constitution…”[12] The United States Constitution declares the American people as, “We the people of the United States…” And as such, the American people are united together rather than a loose confederacy of sovereign nations with mutual interests.[13]

The origins of the American system and the nature of the American Constitution are seen most clearly through Brownson’s understanding of territorial democracy. The thirteen original colonies that formed together as the United States of America did not exist under their own authority. They were created by the authority of the King of England and joined together as United Colonies under the authority of the Continental Congress. The various states that have come into the Union since the creation of the United States Constitution can only do so under the authority of the United States Congress.[14] The individuals living within a given territory are granted democracy within their given territory, but that territory does not have sovereign authority. Rather, it is subject totally to the United States Congress. The people living in the territory, “are subjects of the United States, without any political rights whatever, and, though a part of the population, are no part of the sovereign people of the United States.”[15] Or more simply put, are not citizens. The people of the territory are given the authority by the United States to, “meet in convention, draw up and adopt a constitution declaring or assuming them to be a State, elect State officers, senators, and representatives in the State legislature, and representatives and senators in Congress, but they are not yet a state.”[16]

Thus, when a territory becomes a State and the people of that territory go from being subjects to citizens of the United States that State only exists by the will and authority of the United States Congress. None of the States exist by themselves with sovereign authority. Brownson demonstrates this time and again as showing that society and government are not created and that the United States is the sovereign and not the individual states. As a result, Secession of the various states in 1861 could not be legally permitted as they had no authority independent of the United States to secede from the Union. From the time the first colonies were settled to when the territories became states, the individual states depended upon an outside authority for their creation. As such, outside the Union they are not states.

[1] Brownson, Orestes. The American Republic. ( Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2003) pg. 12

[2] Ibid. 13

[3] “But it is never lawful to resist the rightful sovereign, for it can never be right to resist right, and the rightful sovereign is the constitutional exercise of his power can never be said to abuse it.” Ibid. 17

[4] Ibid 19-20

[5] Ibid. 23

[6] Ibid. 34

[7] Ibid. 136

[8] “If the several States of the Union were severally sovereign states when they met in the convention…” Ibid. 127

[9] Ibid. 141

[10] Ibid. 141, “It is Providential, not made by the nation, but born with it.”

[11] Ibid 141, “The unwritten or Providential constitution of the United States is peculiar…”

[12] Ibid 144

[13] Ibid. 145 “united, not confederate States.”

[14] Ibid. 145 “Even then it was felt that the organization and constitution of a State in the Union could be regularly effected only by the permission of the Congress; and no Territory can, it is well know, regularly organize itself as a State…”

[15] Ibid. 146

[16] Ibid. 146

Published in: on February 2, 2010 at 02:24  Comments (5)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama to give up….

As the American economy continues to slip amid failed attempts by our Federal government to inject trillions of dollars into the country, President Obama and wife Michelle will be flying to England for the G20 summit scheduled at the beginning of April. President Obama scheduled a private meeting with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England. While not an official state visit to England, Obama believes that it is proper for him and the Queen to get to know each other.

Among topics planned for discussion between the Queen and President is the possibility of England retaking control over her former crown jewel colony, the United States. While the White House has remained silent on this issue, it seems clear that President Obama has come to grips with his failure as President of the United States. Unable to stop the bleeding economy, Obama finally is willing to admit he was not the right man for the job.

Further complications are that President Obama has lied to Americans about pulling troops out of Iraq in a timely manner. It was announced that the President intends to have all but roughly 50,000 troops pulled from Iraq over the next several months. Liberals across the country, and in the U.S. Congress, are irate that the President has turned out to be like every other man who ran for the nation’s highest office. The final death knell to his administration seems to have been his failure to remove all earmarks from legislation. In February the U.S. Congress passed a $700 Billion stimulus package that was deemed to be nothing more than earmarks; President Obama subsequently signed the bill into law.

In addition to failed campaign promises, President Obama is faced with the continued failure of America’s car companies, specifically GM. It has been speculated for months that GM will be forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Like Herbert Hoover, who was President during the stock market crash of 1929, President Obama is faced in his young presidency with absolute failure. While not completely his fault, President Obama has called for a socialization of the medical community and partial socialization of the economy, which have both caused fear and panic to drive the stock market to all time lows. President Obama inherited a terrific mess and has made it worse.

In light of these problems, the President has decided he is unfit for command of our country and instead of handing the reigns over to his incompetent Vice President it is best to simply surrender the nation to England. More information concerning the alleged hand over will be provided as it becomes available.

Until then, it is best if we all practice a new phrase: God Save the Queen.

Published in: on March 6, 2009 at 03:19  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

On Representative Leadership

Edmund Burke, an Irish member of the English Parliament and one of the few who argued that the American Colonies were justified in their rebellion, once said, “A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.” Or so says the movie/musical 1776 based on the events surrounding the Second Continental Congress. Whether or not this is an accurate quote or not doesn’t seem to matter as much as whether it is correct. It would appear that in today’s world that the quote doesn’t hold true. In a Democracy the people are suppose to rule, and thus the majority faction will always have sway. On Sunday, September 9th Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press and was asked, as was Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when he thought life began. To clarify a few things, Speaker Pelosi had appeared on the show a few weeks ago and responded that the Catholic Church has never been certain as to when life began (the Catholic Church has always taught life begins at conception.) This drew the ire of Catholics all over the country and a response from the Arch Bishop of Denver during the Democratic National Convention. Biden, a Catholic, was likewise asked and responded that life begins at conception, however, he could not force his morality on others.

It is this argument that contradicts the supposed quote from Edmund Burke concerning the obligation a Representative of the people owes to the people. Biden believes, as do many Senators and Representatives do, that they are obligated to refrain from forcing their morality on the people. Yet, the point of the American regime is that we have representatives. We are, at the least, a Representative Democracy and at the most a Republic. It is the duty of the representatives to represent the people and as such be their voice and advocate on state and federal levels. Consider what Federalist 53 states, “No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgement a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate.” Clearly the Founding generation believed that men would be elected to office who were capable of making legislative decisions. This ability is what allows that individual the right to be a legislator rather than depending on the people to vote on every issue. If the people were expected to vote on every issue, or to have their personal opinions on the matter injected into the debate , then there would be no need for a representative legislator.

According to Publius, the government representatives were to be proportioned to roughly 20,000 citizens in hopes that the people would be able to know their representative and the representative know his people. Like the understanding of trail by jury, the jury was suppose to know of the person who is accused of a crime so that they would know the quality of the accused. The people were expected to vote according to the person, not the issues, in hopes that the person chosen to represent them would be capable of making the decisions. A leader must be able to have the confidence to assert his opinion on a matter on behalf of the people. The leader owes his followers his right judgement. Federalist 55 states, “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence . Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” In our government, the people are expected to place their trust in a single person who then speaks with one voice for all of them.

Senator Biden’s assumption that a representative cannot enforce his morality on those he represents goes against what was expected of representatives in the Founding. Representative leadership presupposes that the people are unable to represent themselves. The character of a Representative should be such that it is beyond reproach. Once again Publius argues, “It is a sound and important principle that the representative ought to be acquainted with the interests and circumstances of his constituents.”(Federalist 56.) Likewise, the people ought to elect a representative who shares those interests and circumstances as his constituents. Therefore, the representative is never forcing his opinion on anyone, but rather upholding the opinions and beliefs of the people. The representative must be able to decipher between the will of the people and the passion of the people. We elect representatives so that only the most well regarded opinions become law, not simply the passions of the people.

Our leaders owe it us to adhere to their conscience when making decisions in Congress, the Oval Office, the Court room, or the battlefield. While they ought to understand and know our interests and circumstances, they owe it to us to use their best judgment in making decisions. Therefore, if Biden was truly doing his job and was justly elected by his constituents then he would not be forcing his morality on the people because they ought to share in his morality and he in theirs. A President, Congressman, or Senator does not have time to go back and check with their constituents on what actions should be taken. They are put into their office to make the decisions the average person cannot. When Senator Obama was in the Illinois State Senate and in 140 votes was only able to know he was present, he failed his constituents who expected that he would be able to say yes or no to the bills presented to him. The people will let their representative know if they made a wrong decision by not electing them to another term. It is unfathomable that Senator Biden would say it is not the place of a Representative to use his best judgment in representing his constituents. As the voters, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard in electing officials so that only those most fit and able hold representative office.

Published in: on September 7, 2008 at 23:50  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Doctrine of Self Preservation

In the Summer of 1763 John Adams undertook the writing of an essay entitled “On Private Revenge.” The turmoil of the French and Indian War was only freshly over and the British Parliament in that same year adopted the Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation granted control over the lands won through the Treaty of Paris to the British government, not the colonial governments. Within a decade the Parliament would go on to do more to seek retribution from the Colonies for the assistance England provided during the war. This enraged the passions of colonial Americans, specifically in New England in and around Boston. Adams’ essay can be viewed only in the light of these events. In his traditional style, Adams calls for law and order to persevere over chaos and anarchy.

The first paragraph of the essay sets up the plan Adams has laid out for his argument. In the Politics, Aristotle asserts that man outside of the city is either a beast or a god. Adams argument is that man is distinguished from other animals because of his ability to unite and entire into society. The natural attributes of man are not enough to make him superior to other animals, but in fact Adams believes they would make man weakest of all other animals. It is found alone in his ability to unite that man is made the superior animal; thus agreeing with Aristotle partially by stating man outside of society is nothing more than a beast such as, “the bear or the tiger.” Within this man, like other animals, Adams argues, “As he comes originally from the hands of his Creator, self-love or self-preservation is the only spring that moves him.” Locke argues that the law of nature is only known through reason, with the exception of the first law which is that of self preservation. Hobbes too argues that within society the Magistrate is capable of ordering his subjects to do whatever he wishes, except if he desires to kill them in which case they are obligated by the Law of Nature to defend their life. And thus Adams has created his argument; man is superior to other animals because he is able to unite himself within society. However, like other animals man has implanted in his soul self preservation, which calls upon man to defend his life whenever it is threatened. How does one preserve his life and at the same time allow himself to exist in society? The law of self preservation appears to grant man the authority to execute the law of nature. Society limits this ability and grants that authority to an impartial third party.

Adams description of a state of nature comes closer to the description provided by Rousseau. He describes that in this state man as he is propagated, food is found on “the banks of clams and oysters”, weapons for war are present, and animal hides are used for clothes. Yet this society is void of friendship, trade, and human bonding unless instinct calls for it. In essence, man is truly free and independent without any other above him or below him. Adams defines the virtues of the “savage state, courage, hardiness, activity, and strength.” Take these four virtues and compare them to the four classical virtues, “Justice, Prudence, Fortitude, and Temperance.” By many the virtue of courage is seen as among the basest virtues, in fact Aristotle in the Ethics describes it almost immediately, indicating that it is the most base of all virtues. The man who is in charge in this society is the one who can kill the best, or run the fastest. This is the basis for tribal leadership, and possibly the roots of how one became king in ancient England, France, or Germany. This basis for determining who is superior will also result in the usage of revenge over justice; the man who perceives himself to be stronger and is beat by another will take it as an insult and attack the other man. Adams even argues that the idea of allowing a third party to mediate the situation is viewed as an acknowledgement of the deficiencies of the savage state. It is clear that Adams views revenge as the hallmark of a savage state. New Englanders within a few years of this essay will attempt to overthrow the established system and seek revenge for the ills done to them by the British parliament. Adams, in a possible prophetic statement argues that when a horse treads over a gouty toe, our passions are so excited that we feel we must kill the horse. The horse is a symbol of Aristocracy in philosophy, which can lead one to see the prophetic nature of the comment. The horse represents the British Parliament, which does end up stepping on the gouty toe of the colonies, who never really recover from the French and Indian War. Adams finishes this section by saying:

For the great distinction between savage nations and polite ones, lies in this,—that among the former every individual is his own judge and his own executioner; but among the latter all pretensions to judgment and punishment are resigned to tribunals erected by the public; a resignation which savages are not, without infinite difficulty, persuaded to make, as it is of a right and privilege extremely dear and tender to an uncultivated nature.

A stark contrast between the savage state and the polite state has been established as in the one man is his own executioner while in the other he is not. Rousseau argues in the Social Contract:

The passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces in man a very remakable    change, by substituting in his conduct justice for instinct, and by giving his actions the moral quality that they previously lacked. It is only when the voice of duty succeeds physical impulse, and law succeeds appetite, that man, who till then had regarded only himself, sees that he is obliged to act on other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations.

Rousseau’s sentiments are similar to Adams, in that when man passes into civil society he is expected to give up those habits which were present in him in nature.

This brings up the next point. If society should ever come to the point where we will give up our polite and noble nature, we will become worse than the Goths before becoming Christians. He compares the individual who believes that when offended one should draw his sword to that of the fowl, the bull, and stallion. The image of these three animals are simple, the bird can represent bloodshed, the bull destructive force, and the stallion life and death. It should be noted that he does not use horse, but rather stallion which indicates not the symbol of aristocracy specifically. Instead, the stallion represents the wild, unbridled passions of man and specifically can be seen as a symbol of life and death, which horses are known to symbolize. After initially using fowl, in his ending sentence of this paragraph Adams states, “But are cocks and bulls and horses the proper exemplars for the imitation of men, especially of men of sense, and even of the highest personages in the government!” The cock more specifically than fowl represents the underworld, passion and pride, and thus we arrive at how man is outside of nature: Prideful, passionate, destructive, and wild.

And finally Adams attacks the point that such images of gallantry have been argued from the military. Adams argument begins by stating that such images are not praised by the military, nor have they ever been. Instead, the dregs of society have idealized the Cock, Bull and Stallion as exemplars for man. He argues, “For every gentleman, every man of sense and breeding in the army, has a more delicate and manly way of thinking, and from his heart despises all such little, narrow, sordid notions.” Of these he mentions specifically Divines, Lawyers and Physicians. Divines represent religion, God; Lawyers represent the law; Physicians have a philosophic meaning behind them, in that whenever a Physician appears it represents healing of the body politic. In this instance though it is much more likely that Adams is speaking that Physicians heal the body and therefore praise themselves above all others such as Divines and Lawyers do. It should be interesting to point out that Adams himself was a lawyer. The other set of professions he mentions include: husbandmen, manufacturers, and laborers. They lack the virtue of magnanimity and are instead short sighted, little minded individuals believing their professions are the best in the world. It is likely then, that soldiers of lower ranks are just as likely to believe them superior to any other order. They are, as a result, prone to the, “principles of revenge, rusticity, barbarity, and brutality…” which are described earlier as the principles upheld by the savage. However, soldiers who are superior in their senses recognize the authority not only of their superiors but also of the civil society. Once again, in a similar prophetic nature as before, these soldiers recognize the superior nature of English law. Moving away from calling them soldiers, it is evident at this point that Adams is specifically referencing men in general, not just those who serve in the Army. England, being an image of the polite society, is superior to the savage society; some of his fellow New Englanders wish to rebel against English rule, thus stooping to this level. A truly polite and decent man would recognize that the doctrine of self preservation as indignant.

Adams having completed his argument has demonstrated that man who seeks the doctrine of private revenge has no regard for civil society, and therefore is only as good as a tiger or bear. Only within civil society is man able to full perfect his nature, which is where Adams demonstrates the Enlightenment principle that nature is created imperfect. It is man’s responsibility to perfect nature by building upon it, making things, and this is only possible in society. Likewise, man is only able to be fully man within society under the constrains of law and order which is characterized by justice; whereas man outside of society and in total chaos is characterized by the doctrine of self preservation, or revenge.

Published in: on August 30, 2008 at 01:11  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.