By Edwin Cooney
There’s no sense in denying the truth. I’m forever trying to figure things out. The challenges are daunting.
Moneymaking has certainly never been my long suit. As for romance, the town drunk is more successful at that than I. Politics? I proudly picked a national winner in 2008 and I’m determined to vote for him again in 2012, but my Tea Party friends get their undies in a bunch every time I proclaim that -- while some of my liberal friends insist there’s no point in voting for him again. Then there’s religion or spirituality: the possibilities are endless there. I occasionally think I have a handle on that topic until I come across an email that turns me off more quickly than I turned off my last “sweetheart.”
I’m going to risk an assertion that I’m absolutely sure every one of you will get behind: you can convince me with all your might, but the instant you try and shame me, you’ve lost me.
The above assertion came swiftly and sharply to mind the other day when I received a message from a devout Christian lady.
One of the most constant threads running through inspirational email messages which we receive these days, be they spiritual or political, is the inevitable command to pass the message on. Some of the appeals to pass such messages on are bolstered with promises:
“Send this message to ten people in your address book and you’ll hear from someone you’ve longed to hear from in the next three months.”
Yes, I’ve fallen for that one! Don’t laugh too hard, please.
Then there’s the “pass this one on to ten people in your address book if you really love America” bromide which invariably consists of an ideologically framed observation or contention.
Okay, another confession: I haven’t yielded to that one because although I love America as much now as I did long ago when I was a conservative, I refuse to peddle the reckless history I invariably find in such emails.
The problem I found in this (no doubt) well-meaning lady’s message wasn’t her insistence that I should love God with all my mind, soul and strength (Matthew 22:37), it was her emphasis on “shame.”
Having received the original email at work, she had concluded that she didn’t have the time and it wasn’t appropriate for her to pass the email on while she was at work. Then she suddenly remembered the Biblical remonstration that if one doesn’t have time for or is ashamed of “the Father,” “the Father” won’t know the one who was ashamed of -- or denied -- “the Father” and “the Son.”
Filled with a sense of guilt, this no doubt fine lady proceeded to send forth this Biblical wisdom laden with Shame. In other words, if I am ashamed or don’t have the time to send an email laden with this Biblical wisdom this instant, then I don’t love God and must be denied.
Of course, I could simply delete such messages and thus not bother you with them, but my reaction to them does serve to offer some perspective. Over the years, I’ve written a couple of columns about fear being the father of anger. This awareness, as I see it, has enabled me, to a considerable extent, to control my anger by focusing on my fear which I believe to be the source of even my “legitimate” anger.
Thus, from the above mentioned inspirational email there comes a new challenge. How should one master the energy that comes from shame? When should I be ashamed? Should I be ashamed upon someone else’s proclamation or should I consider the evidence, my own actions, and the circumstances before accepting my shame?
Of course a world without shame would likely be a pretty rough place, but the use of shame as inspiration is, as I see it, a self-destructive force. Shame me and you lose me. Provide me with evidence of my wrong, my neglect, or my lack of consideration and I’ll apply the shame myself.
“What’s perspective?” you ask. Well, as I see it, it’s a combination of observation and analysis of the significance of people’s experiences and ideas. You might, after reading this piece, agree with a friend who recently observed that perspective is Ed Cooney thinking too much!
What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 25, 2011
Monday, July 18, 2011
REALLY BIG NEWS
By Edwin Cooney
I know I ought to be writing about something really significant such as the increasingly tense atmosphere in Washington, D.C. where President Obama and the GOP struggle with the upcoming August 1st debt limit deadline. Perhaps it would be more timely to write about the situations in Libya and Afghanistan, but I’ve chosen to write about a matter bigger than where it happened and its official significance.
At exactly 2 p.m. on Saturday, July 9th, 2011 at Yankee Stadium (wait a minute, all you nonbaseball fans, this is a human -- not a baseball -- issue!), Derek Jeter, Yankee Shortstop for the last16 years, became the first Yankee to get his 3,000th major league hit. In so doing, he became only the second player whose 3,000th hit was a home run -- the other player was Wade Boggs of the 1999 Tampa Bay Devil Rays. (Boggs spent eleven years with the Red Sox, five with the Yankees and two seasons with Tampa Bay.)
Of course, these days any ball hit into the stands belongs to the fan who catches it. Such wasn’t always the case into the 1930s in some stadiums. However, today it’s standard practice.
The increasing monetary value of historic sports memorabilia inevitably makes the fan a legitimate competitor in line with professional ballplayers, teams, and even the Baseball Hall of Fame for these items of otherwise limited use. This is important because competition means a new avenue of opportunity to strike it rich -- and what could be more important in Twenty-First Century America?
Within minutes of Derek Jeter’s historic hit/home run, a 23-year-old graduate of St. Lawrence University by the name of Christian Lopez, a salesman for Verizon who owes some 200,000 dollars in student loans and is, above all, a Yankee fan, became a New York celebrity just by dint of catching Jeter's ball. “Why?” you ask! Well, Mr. Lopez simply gave Derek Jeter the ball without asking to be paid for it.
What marvelous magnanimity that was, I thought to myself, through all of Saturday, Sunday, and most of Monday -- until I arrived that night at my favorite "watering hole." There I encountered three friends, I mean really sweet people, who were incredulous over what they labeled Christian Lopez’s “stupidity.” How, they demanded to know, could a man who makes maybe $50,000 a year as a salesman (and perhaps less than that) be so utterly stupid as to give that historic baseball, undoubtedly worth several hundred thousand dollars, back to a “multi-million dollar a year baseball player" who works (or plays -- take your pick) for a multi-billion dollar organization. (They didn’t say it, but they were probably thinking: what’s this country coming to?)
I became incredulous in return. What was wrong with that? I wondered. Their reply was that some time in his life, Christian Lopez will be in financial difficulty and he, by having merely given the baseball back to Derek Jeter (and, even worse, indirectly to those money-grubbing Yankees), would have “stupidly but rightfully ” earned his poverty.
I suspected, even though they protested to the contrary, that much of their argument had to do with their anti-Yankee sentiments. Still, the gauntlet had been thrown down and I was honor bound to take it up. Hence, I proceeded to defend Christian Lopez and, of course, Derek Jeter and the New York Yankees. It was a splendid evening of friendly verbal combat!
I suppose it is as American as “baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet” to make an industry out of magnanimity, but it is dangerous. Once we lose the energy to give, because we need to spend as much of our time, opportunity, and energy hoarding money, this society will have become truly decadent. Of course, earthquake, Tsunami, and refugee relief (to name only a few very worthy causes) should rightfully have national priority. Specifically, although I align myself politically and spiritually with the poor, I fear the day when a man can be too rich to be rewarded.
As things have turned out, Christian Lopez is being rewarded for his good deed. The Yankees have given him their gift of a stadium luxury box for the remainder of the season and into the post season, and will undoubtedly pay the taxes for him. The monetary value of this gift is about $32,000. The Topps baseball card company is making a baseball card with Christian Lopez’s picture on it. The Steiner Sports Memorabilia company will give young Lopez a cut of its sales of Derek Jeter 3,000th hit merchandise. Thus, gratitude and justice prevail in New York City and at Yankee Stadium although I'm sure it may be surprising to many.
Of course, what happens in Afghanistan, Libya and in Washington, D. C. is of much greater urgency than anything that takes place on a baseball diamond. If we were to lose our national generosity and magnanimity, would it be huge news? Still worse, would we even notice our loss?
Christian Lopez’s thoughtfulness, generosity and magnanimity have already paid huge dividends in New York City, a place most people regard as both cold and ruthless. That we are still generous and magnanimous is pretty big news, if you ask me! Best of all, it’s happy news!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
I know I ought to be writing about something really significant such as the increasingly tense atmosphere in Washington, D.C. where President Obama and the GOP struggle with the upcoming August 1st debt limit deadline. Perhaps it would be more timely to write about the situations in Libya and Afghanistan, but I’ve chosen to write about a matter bigger than where it happened and its official significance.
At exactly 2 p.m. on Saturday, July 9th, 2011 at Yankee Stadium (wait a minute, all you nonbaseball fans, this is a human -- not a baseball -- issue!), Derek Jeter, Yankee Shortstop for the last16 years, became the first Yankee to get his 3,000th major league hit. In so doing, he became only the second player whose 3,000th hit was a home run -- the other player was Wade Boggs of the 1999 Tampa Bay Devil Rays. (Boggs spent eleven years with the Red Sox, five with the Yankees and two seasons with Tampa Bay.)
Of course, these days any ball hit into the stands belongs to the fan who catches it. Such wasn’t always the case into the 1930s in some stadiums. However, today it’s standard practice.
The increasing monetary value of historic sports memorabilia inevitably makes the fan a legitimate competitor in line with professional ballplayers, teams, and even the Baseball Hall of Fame for these items of otherwise limited use. This is important because competition means a new avenue of opportunity to strike it rich -- and what could be more important in Twenty-First Century America?
Within minutes of Derek Jeter’s historic hit/home run, a 23-year-old graduate of St. Lawrence University by the name of Christian Lopez, a salesman for Verizon who owes some 200,000 dollars in student loans and is, above all, a Yankee fan, became a New York celebrity just by dint of catching Jeter's ball. “Why?” you ask! Well, Mr. Lopez simply gave Derek Jeter the ball without asking to be paid for it.
What marvelous magnanimity that was, I thought to myself, through all of Saturday, Sunday, and most of Monday -- until I arrived that night at my favorite "watering hole." There I encountered three friends, I mean really sweet people, who were incredulous over what they labeled Christian Lopez’s “stupidity.” How, they demanded to know, could a man who makes maybe $50,000 a year as a salesman (and perhaps less than that) be so utterly stupid as to give that historic baseball, undoubtedly worth several hundred thousand dollars, back to a “multi-million dollar a year baseball player" who works (or plays -- take your pick) for a multi-billion dollar organization. (They didn’t say it, but they were probably thinking: what’s this country coming to?)
I became incredulous in return. What was wrong with that? I wondered. Their reply was that some time in his life, Christian Lopez will be in financial difficulty and he, by having merely given the baseball back to Derek Jeter (and, even worse, indirectly to those money-grubbing Yankees), would have “stupidly but rightfully ” earned his poverty.
I suspected, even though they protested to the contrary, that much of their argument had to do with their anti-Yankee sentiments. Still, the gauntlet had been thrown down and I was honor bound to take it up. Hence, I proceeded to defend Christian Lopez and, of course, Derek Jeter and the New York Yankees. It was a splendid evening of friendly verbal combat!
I suppose it is as American as “baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet” to make an industry out of magnanimity, but it is dangerous. Once we lose the energy to give, because we need to spend as much of our time, opportunity, and energy hoarding money, this society will have become truly decadent. Of course, earthquake, Tsunami, and refugee relief (to name only a few very worthy causes) should rightfully have national priority. Specifically, although I align myself politically and spiritually with the poor, I fear the day when a man can be too rich to be rewarded.
As things have turned out, Christian Lopez is being rewarded for his good deed. The Yankees have given him their gift of a stadium luxury box for the remainder of the season and into the post season, and will undoubtedly pay the taxes for him. The monetary value of this gift is about $32,000. The Topps baseball card company is making a baseball card with Christian Lopez’s picture on it. The Steiner Sports Memorabilia company will give young Lopez a cut of its sales of Derek Jeter 3,000th hit merchandise. Thus, gratitude and justice prevail in New York City and at Yankee Stadium although I'm sure it may be surprising to many.
Of course, what happens in Afghanistan, Libya and in Washington, D. C. is of much greater urgency than anything that takes place on a baseball diamond. If we were to lose our national generosity and magnanimity, would it be huge news? Still worse, would we even notice our loss?
Christian Lopez’s thoughtfulness, generosity and magnanimity have already paid huge dividends in New York City, a place most people regard as both cold and ruthless. That we are still generous and magnanimous is pretty big news, if you ask me! Best of all, it’s happy news!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 11, 2011
POLITICS, EGO AND HONOR—OUR FOUNDERS’ MOST LASTING LEGACY
By Edwin Cooney
Just like me, I’m guessing that you were raised to believe that America’s founding fathers were men of super wisdom and morality! Surely no one who founded this nation could be as immoral as Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy. Yet, history records that 207 years ago today (July 11th, 1804 at Weehawken, New Jersey), the sitting Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr, slew former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Wow! What role modeling did those two “founding fathers” provide that day?
A signer and promoter of the new Constitution -- and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers -- Alexander Hamilton was a high achiever. Between 1789 and 1795, Hamilton as our first treasury secretary established American currency, devised an effective plan to settle young America’s war debt (crucial to our international credibility), and created the first Bank of the United States. Following his 1795 departure from government, Hamilton was a high-powered New York lawyer and an accomplished politician. As long as he lived, he would regard himself above any president as the head of the Federalist Party. To that end, he oversaw a network of newspapers and pamphleteers that trashed the personal and political reputations of anyone, whether Federalist or Democratic-Republican, who displeased him.
Aaron Burr was a remarkable politician and perhaps the most progressive thinker of his time. He believed that women were absolutely equal to men and should have equal status. He also promoted the equality of the working man and woman. Burr drew his political power from the laborers, merchants, and businessmen rather than from the aristocracy. The most prominent social club in New York was the Sons of St. Tammany and Aaron Burr helped turn that social club into Tammany Hall, the most formidable political machine in New York for the next century and a half. As a budding politician, Aaron Burr faced three powerful political entities in both New York City and throughout the state. They were the Schuyler/Hamilton family (Hamilton had married Senator Philip Schuyler's daughter Elizabeth in 1780), the Livingston family, and the Clinton family which would remain powerful into the mid-nineteenth century.
Aaron Burr committed two blunders that ultimately led him to Weehawken. In 1791, he defeated Philip Schuyler (Alexander Hamilton’s father-in-law) for one of New York’s seats in the United States Senate. Second, he successfully aligned New York’s Democratic-Republican party with the Virginia aristocracy and thus carried New York State for Thomas Jefferson in 1800. That ultimately broke the back of Hamilton’s Federalist Party both in New York State and nationally.
We think these days of Thomas Jefferson mostly as the author of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries he was thought of as a politician. If Virginia was going to remain the state that produced presidents, New York State’s politicians needed to be controllable. This became increasingly evident when Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s vice presidential running mate, tied Jefferson with 73 votes in the Electoral College in 1800. Unless Vice President Burr was sufficiently weakened in his home state, he could be a threat when Secretary of State James Madison, Jefferson’s friend, decided to run for the presidency. Jefferson knew that Alexander Hamilton, who hated Burr more than he did anyone else, would surely help defang Aaron Burr.
As time moved on, Burr found that his influence in the administration was weakening. By late 1803, Burr knew that President Jefferson was likely to pick George Clinton, New York’s veteran but aging governor, to succeed him as vice president. Burr decided to run in the April 1804 gubernatorial election. With Alexander Hamilton’s help, Burr lost by the biggest margin ever.
The ultimate insult came during that campaign. After a political dinner in Albany, New York, Dr. Charles Cooper in a letter to Philip Schuyler quoted Alexander Hamilton as asserting that Aaron Burr was both a dangerous and personally despicable man. (Cooper had the letter published in an Albany paper to assure voters that Alexander Hamilton would not let Morgan Lewis, the Democratic-Republican gubernatorial candidate, lose to Aaron Burr.) To be described as dangerous was one thing, but to be described as “despicable” had -- in early American culture -- an overtone of private sexual depravity. In other words, Vice President Aaron Burr’s honor was at question. Thus, the Code Duello was the only pathway to restoring one’s honor.
After Burr failed to get Hamilton to modify what he had asserted, Burr issued his challenge to a duel. Under the Code Duello, Hamilton picked the weapons and Aaron Burr arrived on the site of the duel first. The time was shortly before 7 a.m. on that hot and muggy Tuesday morning.
No one who witnessed the duel was sure who fired first. Some say Hamilton did and that Burr had a physical reaction to the shot which struck a cedar branch about 12 feet high and about halfway between the two combatants. Burr’s shot struck Hamilton about two inches above his right hip: the ball passed through Hamilton’s liver and lodged in his spine. It was reported that Vice President Burr did express regrets to the fallen Hamilton as he left the scene and headed back across the Hudson to New York City.
Alexander Hamilton, paralyzed and in great pain, lived until about 2 p.m. on Wednesday, July 12th, 1804. Burr’s life was spared, but both his honor and his political career were fatally tarnished. Alexander Hamilton’s life was over, but his fame became greater than his honor.
Yes, indeed, ego and honor live with us yet, legacies of our nature and institutionalized by America’s founding generation. It’s a little strange, isn’t it, that we still believe, despite George Washington’s stern warning, that our ego and honor can be healthfully nourished by politicians? You can speak for yourself, but I’d STILL rather be led by a politician than by a king!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Just like me, I’m guessing that you were raised to believe that America’s founding fathers were men of super wisdom and morality! Surely no one who founded this nation could be as immoral as Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy. Yet, history records that 207 years ago today (July 11th, 1804 at Weehawken, New Jersey), the sitting Vice President of the United States, Aaron Burr, slew former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Wow! What role modeling did those two “founding fathers” provide that day?
A signer and promoter of the new Constitution -- and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers -- Alexander Hamilton was a high achiever. Between 1789 and 1795, Hamilton as our first treasury secretary established American currency, devised an effective plan to settle young America’s war debt (crucial to our international credibility), and created the first Bank of the United States. Following his 1795 departure from government, Hamilton was a high-powered New York lawyer and an accomplished politician. As long as he lived, he would regard himself above any president as the head of the Federalist Party. To that end, he oversaw a network of newspapers and pamphleteers that trashed the personal and political reputations of anyone, whether Federalist or Democratic-Republican, who displeased him.
Aaron Burr was a remarkable politician and perhaps the most progressive thinker of his time. He believed that women were absolutely equal to men and should have equal status. He also promoted the equality of the working man and woman. Burr drew his political power from the laborers, merchants, and businessmen rather than from the aristocracy. The most prominent social club in New York was the Sons of St. Tammany and Aaron Burr helped turn that social club into Tammany Hall, the most formidable political machine in New York for the next century and a half. As a budding politician, Aaron Burr faced three powerful political entities in both New York City and throughout the state. They were the Schuyler/Hamilton family (Hamilton had married Senator Philip Schuyler's daughter Elizabeth in 1780), the Livingston family, and the Clinton family which would remain powerful into the mid-nineteenth century.
Aaron Burr committed two blunders that ultimately led him to Weehawken. In 1791, he defeated Philip Schuyler (Alexander Hamilton’s father-in-law) for one of New York’s seats in the United States Senate. Second, he successfully aligned New York’s Democratic-Republican party with the Virginia aristocracy and thus carried New York State for Thomas Jefferson in 1800. That ultimately broke the back of Hamilton’s Federalist Party both in New York State and nationally.
We think these days of Thomas Jefferson mostly as the author of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries he was thought of as a politician. If Virginia was going to remain the state that produced presidents, New York State’s politicians needed to be controllable. This became increasingly evident when Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s vice presidential running mate, tied Jefferson with 73 votes in the Electoral College in 1800. Unless Vice President Burr was sufficiently weakened in his home state, he could be a threat when Secretary of State James Madison, Jefferson’s friend, decided to run for the presidency. Jefferson knew that Alexander Hamilton, who hated Burr more than he did anyone else, would surely help defang Aaron Burr.
As time moved on, Burr found that his influence in the administration was weakening. By late 1803, Burr knew that President Jefferson was likely to pick George Clinton, New York’s veteran but aging governor, to succeed him as vice president. Burr decided to run in the April 1804 gubernatorial election. With Alexander Hamilton’s help, Burr lost by the biggest margin ever.
The ultimate insult came during that campaign. After a political dinner in Albany, New York, Dr. Charles Cooper in a letter to Philip Schuyler quoted Alexander Hamilton as asserting that Aaron Burr was both a dangerous and personally despicable man. (Cooper had the letter published in an Albany paper to assure voters that Alexander Hamilton would not let Morgan Lewis, the Democratic-Republican gubernatorial candidate, lose to Aaron Burr.) To be described as dangerous was one thing, but to be described as “despicable” had -- in early American culture -- an overtone of private sexual depravity. In other words, Vice President Aaron Burr’s honor was at question. Thus, the Code Duello was the only pathway to restoring one’s honor.
After Burr failed to get Hamilton to modify what he had asserted, Burr issued his challenge to a duel. Under the Code Duello, Hamilton picked the weapons and Aaron Burr arrived on the site of the duel first. The time was shortly before 7 a.m. on that hot and muggy Tuesday morning.
No one who witnessed the duel was sure who fired first. Some say Hamilton did and that Burr had a physical reaction to the shot which struck a cedar branch about 12 feet high and about halfway between the two combatants. Burr’s shot struck Hamilton about two inches above his right hip: the ball passed through Hamilton’s liver and lodged in his spine. It was reported that Vice President Burr did express regrets to the fallen Hamilton as he left the scene and headed back across the Hudson to New York City.
Alexander Hamilton, paralyzed and in great pain, lived until about 2 p.m. on Wednesday, July 12th, 1804. Burr’s life was spared, but both his honor and his political career were fatally tarnished. Alexander Hamilton’s life was over, but his fame became greater than his honor.
Yes, indeed, ego and honor live with us yet, legacies of our nature and institutionalized by America’s founding generation. It’s a little strange, isn’t it, that we still believe, despite George Washington’s stern warning, that our ego and honor can be healthfully nourished by politicians? You can speak for yourself, but I’d STILL rather be led by a politician than by a king!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, July 4, 2011
INDEPENDENCE—-DOES IT SPELL FREEDOM?
By Edwin Cooney
Of course, today’s a day for parades, picnics, baseball and tall “cold ones” to fit all tastes. After all, it’s the Fourth of July. It’s Independence Day and for most Americans independence and freedom are one in the same.
Why shouldn’t they be? After all, you and I were born and reared in freedom, so independence from Great Britain meant we were free from “British tyranny.” Everyone knows that since independence frees a people from tyranny or colonialism, independence means freedom -- does it not?
Of course, you and I are indeed free to come up with any conclusion we choose, but it’s important to note that Britain, with all her faults, was at that time the freest nation in the world. She would become even freer over the next two centuries even with her monarchy. Even more to the point, Britain, as a result of our rebellion, would become a much more effective empire builder to the point that it is said that “the sun never set on British soil.” A hundred years after the loss of her “American subjects,” British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli proclaimed his queen--Queen Victoria--“Empress of India.”
Eleven uncertain years would pass between 1776, when Thomas Jefferson would so eloquently declare our independence, and 1787, when Jefferson’s friend James Madison would guide the passage of the Constitution of the United States through a contentious four month long convention. It was the Constitution that would make America a republic constructed to guarantee and advance the freedom of the individual.
Even as the Continental Congress declared our independence from Britain and authorized the establishment of a Continental Army that would so valiantly fight for that independence, there was no requirement that the states furnish the necessary funding to purchase materials and pay for the services of its farmer soldiers. This caused considerable discontent between the Army and the Congress. (Ironically, Benedict Arnold could commit treason in violation of military law, but nothing compelled the states to financially support the War for Independence).
Even after the war, a number of Revolutionary War leaders toyed with the idea of establishing an American monarchy. In May 1782, General Lewis Nicola, in a personal letter to George Washington, strongly suggested that he should become America’s George the First. Washington angrily rejected the idea which brought about a profuse apology from General Nicola.
As late as 1786, either Continental Congress President Nathaniel Gorham or Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who had fought alongside Washington beginning in 1778, suggested to Alexander Hamilton that an invitation be extended to Prince Heinrich of Prussia to become America’s Henry the First. (Prince Heinrich was the younger brother of Frederick the Great whom Adolf Hitler would later proclaim to have been Germany’s greatest leader).
Shocking as the idea of an American monarchy may be to you and me, it must be remembered that a number of American generals, including George Washington, had fought under the names of British kings. Furthermore, late eighteenth century America utilized several institutions with which a truly free country would blush to be associated.
These included indentured servitude, state-sponsored churches, debtor’s prisons, and slavery. Not even the passage of the Constitution ended any of these anti-democratic social institutions.
Ironically, as Abraham Lincoln liked to point out, the Declaration of Independence, even more than the Constitution, was the guarantor of the people’s freedom. However, the document that gave us birth was a declaration not a law. It expressed our intentions more than it reflected who we were at the time of its publication. Its contention that “all men are created equal,” reflected spiritual values rather than the legal standing of the individual. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to refer to the Declaration of Independence as America’s “promissory note.”
The current fate of a number of African nations, once the colonial possessions of European powers, illustrates the starkest testimony that independence doesn’t automatically spell freedom. What independence does do is to provide the richest opportunity for freedom to flourish.
Yes, indeed! Today’s the Fourth of July -- Independence Day. It’s a perfect opportunity to parade, cheer, and to picnic... and to be glad that opportunity spells F.R.E.E.D.O.M.
What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Of course, today’s a day for parades, picnics, baseball and tall “cold ones” to fit all tastes. After all, it’s the Fourth of July. It’s Independence Day and for most Americans independence and freedom are one in the same.
Why shouldn’t they be? After all, you and I were born and reared in freedom, so independence from Great Britain meant we were free from “British tyranny.” Everyone knows that since independence frees a people from tyranny or colonialism, independence means freedom -- does it not?
Of course, you and I are indeed free to come up with any conclusion we choose, but it’s important to note that Britain, with all her faults, was at that time the freest nation in the world. She would become even freer over the next two centuries even with her monarchy. Even more to the point, Britain, as a result of our rebellion, would become a much more effective empire builder to the point that it is said that “the sun never set on British soil.” A hundred years after the loss of her “American subjects,” British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli proclaimed his queen--Queen Victoria--“Empress of India.”
Eleven uncertain years would pass between 1776, when Thomas Jefferson would so eloquently declare our independence, and 1787, when Jefferson’s friend James Madison would guide the passage of the Constitution of the United States through a contentious four month long convention. It was the Constitution that would make America a republic constructed to guarantee and advance the freedom of the individual.
Even as the Continental Congress declared our independence from Britain and authorized the establishment of a Continental Army that would so valiantly fight for that independence, there was no requirement that the states furnish the necessary funding to purchase materials and pay for the services of its farmer soldiers. This caused considerable discontent between the Army and the Congress. (Ironically, Benedict Arnold could commit treason in violation of military law, but nothing compelled the states to financially support the War for Independence).
Even after the war, a number of Revolutionary War leaders toyed with the idea of establishing an American monarchy. In May 1782, General Lewis Nicola, in a personal letter to George Washington, strongly suggested that he should become America’s George the First. Washington angrily rejected the idea which brought about a profuse apology from General Nicola.
As late as 1786, either Continental Congress President Nathaniel Gorham or Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, who had fought alongside Washington beginning in 1778, suggested to Alexander Hamilton that an invitation be extended to Prince Heinrich of Prussia to become America’s Henry the First. (Prince Heinrich was the younger brother of Frederick the Great whom Adolf Hitler would later proclaim to have been Germany’s greatest leader).
Shocking as the idea of an American monarchy may be to you and me, it must be remembered that a number of American generals, including George Washington, had fought under the names of British kings. Furthermore, late eighteenth century America utilized several institutions with which a truly free country would blush to be associated.
These included indentured servitude, state-sponsored churches, debtor’s prisons, and slavery. Not even the passage of the Constitution ended any of these anti-democratic social institutions.
Ironically, as Abraham Lincoln liked to point out, the Declaration of Independence, even more than the Constitution, was the guarantor of the people’s freedom. However, the document that gave us birth was a declaration not a law. It expressed our intentions more than it reflected who we were at the time of its publication. Its contention that “all men are created equal,” reflected spiritual values rather than the legal standing of the individual. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to refer to the Declaration of Independence as America’s “promissory note.”
The current fate of a number of African nations, once the colonial possessions of European powers, illustrates the starkest testimony that independence doesn’t automatically spell freedom. What independence does do is to provide the richest opportunity for freedom to flourish.
Yes, indeed! Today’s the Fourth of July -- Independence Day. It’s a perfect opportunity to parade, cheer, and to picnic... and to be glad that opportunity spells F.R.E.E.D.O.M.
What say you?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)