Part one here:

Part two here:

The Professor From Virginia by Mort Kunstler

And just for Joel Leggett:

There Stands Jackson Like A Stonewall by Mort Kunstler

Pat Robertson has been accused of blaming the Haiti earthquake on” God’s wrath” and Haiti’s “pact with the Devil” – though if you actually listen to his comments, that isn’t’ exactly true – though I would agree that his words, and their timing, were poorly chosen at best. Nothing really new for Reverend Robertson. Now, Danny Glover is blaming the Haiti earthquake on Gaia. So, my question to all you theologians: Who’s running this world, Father God or mother nature? Will Glover suffer the same scorn? Of course, the questions are rhetorical ones.

And, in a very strange providence, I watched a PBS documentary last night about Haiti and her revolutionary military leader, François-Dominique Toussaint L’ouverture. It was a fascinating film. Part of the narrative went into some detail about Haiti’s voodooism and their so-called “pact with the devil.” At about 6:11 into the following clip–and until the end of the clip taken from the PBS special–the connection between voodoo and Haiti’s revolution against France is quite plainly made by the narrative–the same connection to which Robertson referred in his now infamous comments. Hmmm . . . did the producers of this documentary consult with Pat Robertson or are they simply saying the same thing without the charismatic, evangelical “flair”?

Calling all American history buffs.  I, along with several other history lovers, have started a new blog: Almost Chosen People.  The blog will cover American history up until the time of Reconstruction.  It should be a fun venture, covering various aspects of our country’s development.

As for the meaning of the blog’s title – my co-blogger Donald McClarey explains here.

Arkansas 2 is part of what I call the Jacksonian belt, the swath of counties from southwestern Pennsylvania along the Appalachian chain and extending to Oklahoma and Texas which were largely settled by the Scots-Irish immigrants that streamed into America in the dozen years before the Revolution and their descendants. Their great hero, and the son of Scots-Irish immigrants himself, was Andrew Jackson, the victor of Horseshoe Bend and New Orleans, who set about removing Indians from much of this territory and was the founder of the Democratic party. In 2008 voters in the Jacksonian belt voted heavily against Barack Obama in both the Democratic primaries and the general election, as you can see on these national maps and by clicking on individual states to see the county-by-county returns. This map showing the counties which cast a higher percentage of votes for John McCain in 2008 than for George W. Bush in 2004 is essentially a map of the Jacksonian belt.

If Vic Snyder is in trouble, it’s a good bet that many other Democrats from the Jacksonian belt are too.

Very interesting. My Scots-Irish ancestors are smiling from heaven. More here.

Before looking at Federalists 18, 19, and 20, I note that there’s some dispute about the authorship of these three.  Madison is universally credited with being at least the co-author of all three essays, and many sources give sole credit to him.  The Benjamin Wright edition that I use lists Madison singly as the author, but the website where I am linking to cites Madison and Hamilton as co-authors.  My own sense after closely reading them is that there is at least a trace of Alexander Hamilton present, especially in numbers 19 and 20.  At any rate, I’ll simply refer to the author as Publius for this group of papers.

Publius gives a bit of a history lesson in Federalists 18-20.  He traces the history of ancient confederacies and analyzes the causes of their collective failures.  He starts out in number 18 by taking a look at the Greek confederacies and observes that they all retained their independence and sovereignty. (more…)

Alexander Hamilton commences his discussion of the deficiencies of confederacy with Federalist 15.  Publius has alluded to this throughout the first 14 papers, but now he undertakes a concerted effort to demonstrate the insufficiency of the confederate form of government.  This particular essay is even more polemical than is usual for Hamilton.  So convinced is he that the confederacy falls short of meeting the needs of the Nation, he asserts that it is beyond debate.

In pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the discussion of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the insufficiency of the present Confederation to the preservation of the Union. It may perhaps be asked what need there is of reasoning or proof to illustrate a position which is not either controverted or doubted, to which the understandings and feelings of all classes of men assent, and which in substance is admitted by the opponents as well as by the friends of the new Constitution. It must in truth be acknowledged that, however these may differ in other respects, they in general appear to harmonize in this sentiment, at least, that there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy. The facts that support this opinion are no longer objects of speculation. They have forced themselves upon the sensibility of the people at large, and have at length extorted from those, whose mistaken policy has had the principal share in precipitating the extremity at which we are arrived, a reluctant confession of the reality of those defects in the scheme of our federal government, which have been long pointed out and regretted by the intelligent friends of the Union. (more…)

Madison’s second contribution to the Federalist Papers is a second significant addition to the world of political theory.  In it, he expands upon a point made in the tenth paper, and that’s the distinction between a republic and a democracy.  It’s a distinction that we in the modern era fail to fully appreciate.  Madison’s main theme is that a republic is the right type of government for an extended territory.

Madison begins by laying down some definitions. (more…)

Alexander Hamilton continues his discussion of the commercial advantages of a Federal Union in the next two Federalist Papers.  The 12th essay is concerned with the advantage that a consolidated Union will provide in terms of revenue collection.  In so doing, Hamilton elaborates on a recurrent theme of the essays, namely that a division of the states into separate confederacies will lead to various inefficiencies and will undercut America’s promise as an emerging financial powerhouse.

He begins with an observation that makes it seem as though Hamilton had been busy reading his Wealth of Nations. (more…)

With the 11th Federalist Paper, Hamilton covers a subject near and dear to his heart: commerce.  Hamilton posits that another advantage of Union will be that it will better be able to promote commerce.  Hamilton envisions America prospering as a commercial rather than agricultural economic power. In fact it can be argued that this is the primary motivating force behind Hamilton’s support for the Constitution.

At any rate, Hamilton begins by observing that the other world powers would be potentially anxious about America becoming a commercial power, and one benefit of Union would be for the states to protect themselves from the meddling of foreign powers in this arena. (more…)

Part one here.

Madison returns to the discussion of factions by looking at the second grouping: controlling their effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

Having outlined the different approaches to controlling the effects of faction, Madison discusses why a direct democracy is incapable of squashing them. (more…)

We finally arrive at James Madison’s first contribution to the collaborative effort to advance the cause of ratification.  Madison’s essay is perhaps – along with the 51st essay in the series -  the most well-known of the Federalist Papers.  This is a rare occasion where the hype is merited, and in fact the essay might be under-appreciated in certain respects.  While Madison enlarges upon Hamilton’s theme from the ninth paper re: the size of the Union acting as a check against faction, this paper is also theoretically significant because in it Madison explains the difference between republics and democracies.  It is a distinction that is often overlooked, but it represents they key difference between Madison and the Framers on one hand, and Thomas Jefferson and other radical democrats on the other.

Madison begins by covering ground from the previous essay.  This is a long paragraph, so let’s break it into two parts. (more…)

Regular Guy Paul helpfully pointed out that I had somehow skipped over Federalist 8. So excuse me for a moment as we backtrack and take a quick look at this number.

Once again the theme here is the inevitable warring that would occur between the states if the Constitution was not ratified.  Hamilton’s contention is that not only would war break out, but the warfare would be worse than on the European continent, and would leave the weaker and smaller states at the mercy of the larger. (more…)

In the ninth paper, Alexander Hamilton continues the theme that has been running through much of the early series of papers.  Once again, Publius* seeks to celebrate the benefits of a single Union over separate confederacies.  In this particular case, Hamilton anticipates the subject matter of Madison’s celebrated tenth paper.

Before getting started on the subject matter, I’d like to point out Hamilton’s rhetorical brilliance.  It is simply one of the most masterfully written essays ever compiled.  Hamilton lays it on a little thick at times, but it’s well worth the ride.

At any rate, Hamilton gets right to the heart of his thesis in the opening paragraph. (more…)

Alexander Hamilton takes up his quill again to pen the next four Federalist Papers.  The underlying theme is still the importance of a united Nation, but now Hamilton discusses the discord that will arise between the states if they form rival confederacies.

At the start of the sixth paper, Hamilton touches upon a subject which will be the point of emphasis for James Madison down the line. (more…)

I have started a series on my personal blog where I take a look at each of the Federalist Papers.  Here is one, two, and three-five.  I will be cross-posting here as well from now on.

E.J. Dionne has a “I’m Smarter than You” argument today that the Senate should put its money where its mouth is on a federal-style respect for concealed carry throughout the Union and permit guns in the supreme Court and legislative chambers. Aside from the totally asinine comparison of the ENTIRE UNITED STATES with two small buildings, I wonder if Dionne isn’t missing a bigger point. Does anyone out there know if historically guns/weapons have ALWAYS been banned in legislatures and courts, going back even to Parliament and the Star Chamber? My political science reading on this is that, yes, force is one way to resolve our differences but the legislatures and courts have always been temples and altars dedicated to the civil resolution of disagreements. So a prohibition on weapons in these near-sacred places denotes the importance of these activities outside the realities of day-to-day life. Thoughts? Not that I wouldn’t want to see SOME of our congressional members armed.

Whenever freedom is lost, wherever tyranny is found, there are three accompanying factors: religious oppression, economic depression, and a culture of death.

Orwell’s 1984 provides a vivid example of this principle. Religion in Oceania has been wholly abolished, the people live in government-induced squalor, and the state routinely comes between children and their parents, and is working on preventing marriage altogether.

But there are ample historical examples as well. (more…)

Today is the feast of St. Thomas More. He was an honest lawyer, and as punishment he was beheaded. All other lawyers should take heed of this fact.

I’ve recently been watching the surprisingly good Showtime series The Tudors, which is a dramatic retelling of the reign of Henry VIII. It’s not family viewing, but the historical material is very engaging, and the treatment of Thomas More on the show is, in my opinion, top notch. The above clip, in which More refuses to take the Oath of Succession, may offer a glimpse of what I mean.

In the midst of an excellent piece on the abortion issue, Teri O’Brien recently asked the question, “could one be a ‘centrist’ on the issue of slavery?”

The answer is, of course one could. Back in the day, U.S. Senator Stephen A. Douglas (D-IL; who was Barack Obama’s direct predecessor in the U.S. Senate), was the voice of moderation on the slavery issue. Douglas could be described as “pro-choice” on slavery, although he preferred to speak of “popular sovereignty,” by which he meant the rights of the people of the several states and territories to decide the slavery question for themselves. (more…)

Once upon a time, in 2004, the Great State of Pennsylvania was represented in the United States Senate by two Republican: Pro-choice liberal Arlen Specter, who had led the fight for the confirmation of Clarence Thomas’ nomination to the Supreme Court but had also voted to acquit Bill Clinton at his impeachment trial, and pro-life lion Rick Santorum, who had gained recognition as the Senate’s foremost defender of unborn human life. (more…)

The title of the post says it all.  This is a rundown of the ten worst decisions handed down by the highest court in the land.  It was difficult pairing this list down to ten, but to me these represent the epitome of bad judicial decision-making.

I have three criteria by which I uses to judge bad Supreme Court decisions. First, the Court has to have erred in its decision.  Simple enough.  The more it veers away from an originalist understanding of the Constitution, the worse I deem it to be.  Second, I look at the majority reasoning.  It’s one thing to come up with a bad decision, it’s another to defend it in a highly non-sensical fashion.  Finally, I look at impact of the ruling.  A bad outcome can be mitigated by a later reversal.  The greater the historical impact of the decision – for ill – the worse I deem it to be.

Without further ado, here are my infamous ten. (more…)

This is almost too perfect for Southern Appeal.

Here’s the money quote describing an encounter between Fr. Sheeran and the great General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson:

“Going to his [Father Sheeran’s] tent one day, General Jackson sternly rebuked the priest for disobeying his orders, and reproached him for doing what he would not tolerate in any officer in his command. [The exact offense is unknown.] ‘Father Sheeran,’ said the general, ‘you ask more favors and take more privileges than any officer in the army.’ [Sheeran apparently replied] ‘General Jackson, I want you to understand that as a priest of God I outrank every officer in your command. I even outrank you, and when it is a question of duty I shall go wherever called.’ The General looked with undistinguished astonishment on the bold priest and without reply left his tent.”

Speaking of birthdays, I thought I’d give a brief shout-out to one of my favorite Civil War generals, Winfield Scott Hancock.  (He’s Union – I’m a Yankee at heart)  Commanding the 2nd Corps, Army of the Potomac, he was the ideal soldier, though his wartime vocabulary has been described as “sulphiric”.  Postwar, he ran unsuccessfully on the Democratic ticket against my very distant relative, James Garfield. His wikipedia page here.

This is the image gracing my laptop’s desktop.

Paul beat me to the punch, before I could give my own glowing praise of our 16th President, possibly the most revered of American saints.

For any Lincoln fan in the DC area, at 12 noon today, they’re going to unveil a new statue of him outside his Presidential Cottage, over in the Brookland/CUA area.    The American History branch of the Smithsonian also has a few exhibits on him which, although visually stunning, reduced Lincoln to be a 2-dimensional abolitionist. There’s also a lot of stuff going on at Ford’s Theater, which just reopened last night, so if y’all get the chance, I suggest checking it out.

EDIT: I lie. The statue has already been unveiled. Still, it’s probably worth seeing.

Today is the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States of America.

Since childhood, he has been a hero of mine. I revere his determination to save the Union, and I am inspired by his hatred of slavery. I have no doubt that if he were alive today, he would hate abortion, too.

My favorite book on Lincoln is Carl Sandburg’s combined edition of his 6-volumes’ work, The Prairie Years and The War Years.

An interesting detail: Lincoln’s grandfather, also named Abraham Lincoln, was a captain of militia in Virginia. In 1782, he moved his family into Kentucky, where his grandson, our 16th president, was to be born. He made this move on the advice of his good friend, Daniel Boone, who had explored the area extensively.
(more…)

Earlier this month Gertrude Himmelfarb gave a lecture at AEI on Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France.  Audio and video are now available here.

I interrupt SA’s normal campaign-related blogging to ask what will seem like a completely arcane historical question: was the Louisiana Purchase constitutional?  After having read a quite a lot about the deal, I still remain somewhat unsure about the answer to that question.  Jefferson seemed to think it was unconstitutional, but went ahead with it when he thought the deal would fall through if he delayed too long in trying to push for a constitutional amendement.

So, I put the question to you, the Southern Appeal readership.