By Edwin Cooney
Just think of it! Could a presidential name be any plainer than that of Andy Johnson? That’s what Andy Johnson was—plain (without frills) and direct. He wasn’t nearly as rough, dramatic, or deadly as General Andrew Jackson. In fact, Andy Johnson was often especially helpful to people down on their luck. Ultimately however, he possessed an indomitable determination, which made his personality stand out. He was a Democrat to his very core, which is the heart of his tragic presidential story.
Born to Jacob Johnson and Mary McDonough (her friends called her Polly) in Raleigh, North Carolina on December 29th, 1808, Andy would be fatherless by age three. His dad, Jake Johnson, who served for a time as Town Constable of Raleigh, North Carolina, saved two prominent local men from drowning in nearby Hunter’s Mill Pond one day in December 1811. He dragged the two men to the shore before collapsing from exhaustion. Becoming ill from the effects of the chilled water, he never quite regained his health. On January 4th, 1812, while serving as sexton of the local Presbyterian Church, Jacob Johnson was tolling the church bell for a local funeral when he collapsed and died from the exertion.
Raised by his widowed mother, Andy and his older brother William were indentured to a local tailor when Andy was fourteen. That meant that until they had worked off the cost of their training as tailors, the Johnson boys were virtual property to their boss James J. Selby. However, both boys became disenchanted with the arrangement and made their break one night in the spring of 1824. In June of that year, Selby offered a ten dollar reward for the return of the Johnson boys, but he made it plain in the local newspaper that he’d pay the full reward even if it was only Andy who was returned to him.
However, after short stays in Carthage, North Carolina and Laurens, South Carolina, Andy headed for the hills of East Tennessee. He settled in Greenville sometime in 1826.
Good things happened fast in that east Tennessee mountain town for young Andy. The very day he arrived in Greenville with his mother and stepfather Turner Dougherty, he was spotted by sixteen-year-old Eliza McCardle. She immediately declared, “There goes my beau,” and married him the following spring. The town tailor had just retired, so Andy Johnson’s profession was laid out for him upon his arrival. Two years later, he was a town alderman and, in 1830, just before his twenty-second birthday, he was elected the town’s mayor. He’d come to Greenville in 1826 as an illiterate runaway from indentured servitude and by 1830 he’d begun his profession, married, been elected to public office, and, most important of all, learned to read. His young wife was his teacher; Andy Johnson never attended even one day of school.
He was twenty-six when he went to the State Legislature in 1835. His platform was simple: he was and always would be for the workingman. Yet, he showed his considerable courage early on when he opposed a popular internal improvements bill in the State Legislature. He voted against it -- and his constituents voted against him the next Election Day. They returned him to the legislature, however, in 1839. He would be re-elected in 1840 and elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1842.
For ten years in the House, he supported most of the things other Southern Democrats supported, such as: the annexation of Texas, the Mexican war, the gag rule in the House preventing that body from even considering antislavery petitions, and the Compromise of 1850 which brought California into the Union and instituted the Fugitive Slave Law.
What Congressman Johnson did oppose was spending for federal institutions (such as the Smithsonian Institute) and large expenditures for the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
Gerrymandered by Tennessee Whigs out of his congressional district in 1850, Johnson decided to run for Governor of Tennessee in 1852. Frustrating his enemies, he won -- and for two terms championed the working folks once again, this time by creating a public school system and a state library.
In 1857, the State Legislature unanimously elected Andrew Johnson to the United States Senate. He proclaimed at the time that the Senate was his highest ambition. No doubt he meant it too! Andy Johnson hated pretentious “high brows.”
As America moved closer to civil war, Johnson became convinced that wealthy planters were causing the trouble and not the people. There were, after all, only about 385,000 slave holders in the South’s entire population of around nine million. It was the fear for their waning power and influence that threatened disunion, not “uppity” slaves. Thus, as Andy Johnson saw it, a civil war would be a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight.
In 1860, the fifty-one-year-old Tennessee senator was, for a time, a “favorite son” presidential candidate. He was even a prospective vice presidential possibility on a national Democratic ticket. Still, Johnson cheerfully supported Vice President John C. Breckenridge’s candidacy. When Lincoln won and the South rumbled with secession, Andy Johnson declared to a packed Senate gallery that although he, too, had fought against Abraham Lincoln, his blood and his very existence was with the Union and he would be loyal to it. He was the only Southern senator to refuse to secede. Even though many of his original Eastern Tennessee mountain constituents shared his unionist views (most were too poor to own slaves), many did not.
While traveling back to Tennessee, he was twice removed from his train by angry mobs who wanted to hang him. It almost happened on the second occasion, but an old man in the crowd shouted that hanging was something that his constituents should have the right to do, so the crowd let him go back to Tennessee for hanging. Once at home, he faced down angry constituents at a meeting. He began his speech by asserting, as he placed his own pistol on the table in front of him, that if anyone proposed to shoot him it ought to be the first order of business in that day’s meeting. No one shot at him. Andy Johnson was a very brave man.
On March 4th, 1862, his Senate term having run out, Johnson was appointed Military Governor of Tennessee with the rank of Brigadier General by President Lincoln. That meant that Andy possessed all of the military, legislative, executive and even judicial power necessary to establish union civil government throughout the state. Grant had just freed Nashville from rebel control and a brave, experienced, and capable man was needed to complete the task of removing the rebel blight and replacing it with a healthy local Union civil government. Thus, for the next three years, Governor Johnson removed rebel public office holders, arrested Confederate teachers and preachers, shut down rebel newspapers, and taxed sufficiently to raise needed revenue for the war effort. Governor Johnson successfully requested that Tennessee be exempted when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. The request was granted and, for the rest of the war, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware could keep their slaves.
Once he’d gained the nomination for a second term at the June 1864 Republican National Convention, President Abraham Lincoln asked the convention to nominate Andrew Johnson for Vice President. This was three months before the strategic fall of Atlanta and President Lincoln thought he’d need a Union southerner to sufficiently unite northerners behind his appeal for a second presidential term. Thus Republican Vice President Hannibal Hamlin of Maine was out and Democrat Andy Johnson of Tennessee was in.
On March 4th, 1865, Vice President-Elect Johnson was recovering from an attack of Typhoid Fever. He entered the Senate chamber on the arm of outgoing Vice President Hamlin. Feeling faint in the stuffy chamber, Johnson had several drafts of brandy. When he arose to take the oath and give his (then traditional) Vice Presidential address, he was well under the brandy’s influence and proceeded to give a long rambling address about his humble origins. Normally an excellent orator, he delivered an oration that was a disaster and everyone (some insisted President Lincoln as well) was embarrassed for him. The occasion gave Johnson the undeserved reputation of being a “drunkard.”
One of the last people President Lincoln saw on Friday, April 14th, 1865, the final day of his life, was Andy Johnson. The new Vice President carried from that meeting the knowledge that all was well between himself and the man who, as it turned out, would be martyred within about five hours.
Had things gone according to plan on the night of April 14th, 1865, Vice President Johnson and Secretary of State William Seward would have been killed along with President Lincoln. George Atzerodt, who, with his mother Mary, would be hung for taking part in John Wilkes Booth’s conspiracy, lost his nerve after stalking Johnson. Atzerodt had taken a room in Kirkwood House just below Johnson’s and failed to even attempt to kill the Vice President.
Awakened from a sound sleep and told of President Lincoln’s shooting, Johnson hurried to Petersen’s Boarding House where Lincoln lay totally comatose diagonally (due to his great height) across a bed. The President breathed his last at twenty-one minutes and fifty-five seconds after seven on the morning of Saturday, April 15th. Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase, who wanted to be President much more than Andy Johnson, administered the oath to Johnson at Kirkwood House at ten that very morning.
When he became President, Andrew Johnson was fifty-six years old. He stood five feet ten inches tall, possessed a stocky build, had a broad forehead, black eyes guarded by bushy eyebrows, a rather large nose, a square jaw and cleft chin, and thick black, but graying hair. He often suffered from kidney stones throughout his presidency, but his health was generally good. Andrew and Eliza Johnson were the parents of two daughters, Mary and Martha, and three sons, Charles, Robert, and Andrew Johnson Jr. (Robert was the president’s private secretary before dying of alcoholism just after Johnson’s presidential term ended.) Andy Johnson, always a tailor in his own mind, dressed neatly, usually in black.
The controversy that would bring President Johnson within one vote of removal as President in May 1868 was largely not of his making. Radical Republicans led by Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens and Senate President Benjamin Wade of Ohio (who stood to succeed Johnson were he convicted during the trial) found it politically and financially profitable to punish rather than peaceably reconcile with the South.
Andy Johnson, who’d placed his very life and that of his family on the line as a Union man was, after all, a man of the South. (All three of his sons, his two sons-in-law and even his older brother William—then living in Texas—opposed secession.) Although he’d never owned a slave and even favored partial equality for “educated” blacks, nevertheless he sympathized with white resentment resulting from the oppressive laws passed over his veto. These laws not only enfranchised blacks, they in many ways subjugated Southern whites to a status as unworthy of American citizenship. Even more, as Johnson knew, these laws meant congressional patronage plus railroad and building contract kickbacks to important Republican leaders. Reconstruction, as it came to be called, wasn’t about the Republican Party’s righteous moral indignation over slavery, not really. It was about political and financial advantages. So, President Johnson vetoed and the Republicans passed laws over his veto. One law in particular, the Tenure of Office Act, forbade the President to fire a Cabinet member without permission of the Senate. After all, the Republicans reasoned, the Senate had to approve all original presidential appointments under the constitution.
President Johnson, who was sure the new law was unconstitutional, wanted to test this matter in the courts. He fired Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton who was clearly sympathetic to the congressional radical Republican leadership.
On February 24th, 1868, by a vote of 126 to 47 in the House of Representatives, a Bill of Impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors was passed against Andrew Johnson for firing Stanton and thereby violating the Tenure of Office Act.
The President, who asked for forty days to prepare his defense, was granted only ten. His trial began on March 5th, 1868 and lasted two months.
There were 54 senators at the time representing 27 states. Twelve senators were Democrats and firmly for the President. Since it takes a two-thirds majority to remove a President from office, the Republicans needed 36 votes. As the trial moved along, however, it became clear that seven Republicans (William Fessenden of Maine, Joseph S. Fowler of Tennessee, James W. Grimes of Iowa, John Henderson of Missouri, Edmund Ross of Kansas, Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, and Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia) had serious doubts. None of them personally liked President Johnson. However, they saw the controversy for what it was: a partisan attack on the President, not a legal question or matter of moral principle. Furthermore, the seven realized that if a President could be hounded from office merely because he opposed Congress on a matter important to Congress, the delicate and essential checks and balances built into the constitution by our forefathers would be forever destroyed.
On Saturday, May 16th, 1868, the crucial vote was taken and President Andrew Johnson was found not guilty. Though he hated living in the White House, Johnson had considerable pride. He sought the Democratic presidential nomination that July and received 65 votes on the first ballot, but despite loud and generous speeches of support for the president, the Democratic nomination went to Horatio Seymour of New York.
In March 1875, exactly seven years to the month after his impeachment trial opened in the Senate, Andy Johnson was back in that great chamber, this time as a member rather than as a defendant. It wasn’t easy. He’d lost an 1869 Senate bid and an 1872 Congressional election, but now he was back. Fourteen of his new colleagues who stepped forward to applaud and shake his hand that day had once sat in senatorial judgment of him. Now, however, there was mutual satisfaction. The twelve senators present, who had shouted “guilty” on that May Day of seven years ago, seemed pleased to make amends. Also eager to make amends was that most honorable and courageous of men—Andy Johnson.
It was a good thing, for only a little short of five months later, the former President was dead of a stroke. He was buried on a hilltop in Greenville that August. His winding cloth was an American flag and his eternal pillow was -- you guessed it -- a copy of the United States Constitution.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
CHRISTMAS—-A TIME OF ESSENTIAL INNOCENCE
By Edwin Cooney
It’s true. There’s no use denying it. I’m a sucker for Christmas. I always have been and expect that I always will be.
It isn’t that I have any better handle on how to attain “peace on earth and goodwill toward men” than those who would assume a position of world leadership—Barack Obama included. It’s just that there’s something to be said, at least in my view, for innocence.
It started when I was very young, of course. I remember lying in bed one night in early December of 1953. I was an eight-year-old student at the New York State School for the Blind in Batavia, New York. From the room on the floor below mine came the sound of pipe organ music playing Christmas carols. There was “Joy to the World”, “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” and “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear” – which, along with “From the Eastern Mountains (a State School standard carol) and “O Holy Night”, are my five favorite Christmas carols.
“It Came Upon a Midnight Clear” has a special significance. Somehow, I saw myself on that night long ago with the Shepherds in the field at midnight seeing the star overhead, beckoning all of us towards Bethlehem. My eight-year-old mind imagined the shepherds and me beginning our journey to see the baby Jesus for ourselves, with generous supplies of tasty Christmas cookies, fruit juice, and hot chocolate. Exactly what happened when we got there or what life was like upon our return was, and still is, beyond my comprehension—but anticipation of a long exciting hike through forests under history’s brightest star brought forth in me fifty-five years ago a sense of euphoria, the power of which lingers with me today. That glorious energizing song linked, for me, an occasion of two thousand years ago, with my childlike anticipation of a happy adventure.
Christmas as a concept of a fresh start in life is, to say the very least, invigorating. The very idea that a Being exists who translates to us as “almighty God,” who is strong enough and will at some point in all of our futures begin maintaining us forever in spiritual safety and security, is invariably reassuring in the wake of earthly pain and uncertainty.
Then, of course, there is that other side of Christmas, the Christmas of sharing and receiving all of the material things one can perceive. In that world, cookies, juice, hot chocolate, eggnog, fruit cake and brandy are the realities that can launch us into flights of fantasy we thought we left behind as children. Inevitably, Jesus and Santa Claus meet and merge into one incredible entity or being. Ultimately, both are so extraordinary that they are compellingly real.
Like everyone else, I’ve experienced Christmases that were real bummers. Nineteen eighty-seven, the year my marriage broke up, was a definite downer and I can remember a couple of Christmases as a teen when I was somewhere at “Yuletide” where I didn’t want to be. It’s also true that Christmases are a bit of a struggle without a love partner with which to share them, but overall I still see Christmas as a time of nurturing.
Many, of course, complain about the “over commercialization” of Christmas, but it seems to me that such criticism is poorly placed. Why blame Christmas rather than advertisers for “over commercializing” Christmas. I never let George Steinbrenner ruin the Yankees for me and I never let a national administration of an opposing party (regardless of policy) ruin America for me. My love for my country, the Yankees, and my two sons isn’t predicated on perfection. So, why should I let a bunch of greedy advertisers destroy Christmas? Were I to do that, I’d be giving them far more power than they’ve ever deserved.
Let’s see now:
Every Valentine’s Day we celebrate romance, every Easter we celebrate rebirth, every Memorial Day we celebrate victory over slavery, every Fourth of July we celebrate independence and liberty, every Labor Day we celebrate working and workers, every Halloween we celebrate adventure through ghoulish fantasy (note: have you ever heard anyone complain about the over commercialization of Halloween?), every November 11th we celebrate our veterans and our freedom, every Thanksgiving we celebrate gratitude itself and every Christmas we celebrate Christ’s greatest gifts—loving, sharing and innocent joy. We celebrate these things because through our own commitment and dedication to the joy and satisfaction of these concepts and achievements, we live in a nurturing society.
Part of celebrating Christmas, or a similar holiday of another faith, is, after all, a celebration of our capacity to believe the incomprehensible. In order to believe the incomprehensible we must be free of regimentation and innocent enough to leap doctrinaire and even spiritual boundaries.
Dear Santa, if Christmas is for the innocent, an annual ticket to a place of innocence is precisely what I want sticking out of the top of my Christmas stocking!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
It’s true. There’s no use denying it. I’m a sucker for Christmas. I always have been and expect that I always will be.
It isn’t that I have any better handle on how to attain “peace on earth and goodwill toward men” than those who would assume a position of world leadership—Barack Obama included. It’s just that there’s something to be said, at least in my view, for innocence.
It started when I was very young, of course. I remember lying in bed one night in early December of 1953. I was an eight-year-old student at the New York State School for the Blind in Batavia, New York. From the room on the floor below mine came the sound of pipe organ music playing Christmas carols. There was “Joy to the World”, “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” and “It Came Upon a Midnight Clear” – which, along with “From the Eastern Mountains (a State School standard carol) and “O Holy Night”, are my five favorite Christmas carols.
“It Came Upon a Midnight Clear” has a special significance. Somehow, I saw myself on that night long ago with the Shepherds in the field at midnight seeing the star overhead, beckoning all of us towards Bethlehem. My eight-year-old mind imagined the shepherds and me beginning our journey to see the baby Jesus for ourselves, with generous supplies of tasty Christmas cookies, fruit juice, and hot chocolate. Exactly what happened when we got there or what life was like upon our return was, and still is, beyond my comprehension—but anticipation of a long exciting hike through forests under history’s brightest star brought forth in me fifty-five years ago a sense of euphoria, the power of which lingers with me today. That glorious energizing song linked, for me, an occasion of two thousand years ago, with my childlike anticipation of a happy adventure.
Christmas as a concept of a fresh start in life is, to say the very least, invigorating. The very idea that a Being exists who translates to us as “almighty God,” who is strong enough and will at some point in all of our futures begin maintaining us forever in spiritual safety and security, is invariably reassuring in the wake of earthly pain and uncertainty.
Then, of course, there is that other side of Christmas, the Christmas of sharing and receiving all of the material things one can perceive. In that world, cookies, juice, hot chocolate, eggnog, fruit cake and brandy are the realities that can launch us into flights of fantasy we thought we left behind as children. Inevitably, Jesus and Santa Claus meet and merge into one incredible entity or being. Ultimately, both are so extraordinary that they are compellingly real.
Like everyone else, I’ve experienced Christmases that were real bummers. Nineteen eighty-seven, the year my marriage broke up, was a definite downer and I can remember a couple of Christmases as a teen when I was somewhere at “Yuletide” where I didn’t want to be. It’s also true that Christmases are a bit of a struggle without a love partner with which to share them, but overall I still see Christmas as a time of nurturing.
Many, of course, complain about the “over commercialization” of Christmas, but it seems to me that such criticism is poorly placed. Why blame Christmas rather than advertisers for “over commercializing” Christmas. I never let George Steinbrenner ruin the Yankees for me and I never let a national administration of an opposing party (regardless of policy) ruin America for me. My love for my country, the Yankees, and my two sons isn’t predicated on perfection. So, why should I let a bunch of greedy advertisers destroy Christmas? Were I to do that, I’d be giving them far more power than they’ve ever deserved.
Let’s see now:
Every Valentine’s Day we celebrate romance, every Easter we celebrate rebirth, every Memorial Day we celebrate victory over slavery, every Fourth of July we celebrate independence and liberty, every Labor Day we celebrate working and workers, every Halloween we celebrate adventure through ghoulish fantasy (note: have you ever heard anyone complain about the over commercialization of Halloween?), every November 11th we celebrate our veterans and our freedom, every Thanksgiving we celebrate gratitude itself and every Christmas we celebrate Christ’s greatest gifts—loving, sharing and innocent joy. We celebrate these things because through our own commitment and dedication to the joy and satisfaction of these concepts and achievements, we live in a nurturing society.
Part of celebrating Christmas, or a similar holiday of another faith, is, after all, a celebration of our capacity to believe the incomprehensible. In order to believe the incomprehensible we must be free of regimentation and innocent enough to leap doctrinaire and even spiritual boundaries.
Dear Santa, if Christmas is for the innocent, an annual ticket to a place of innocence is precisely what I want sticking out of the top of my Christmas stocking!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, December 15, 2008
STEADY, DON’T FRET, LITTLE EDDIE!
By Edwin Cooney
It’s all true, of course. While growing up, everyone called me Eddie. I was the youngest of three Eddies who attended our residential School for the Blind. One Eddie (Edgardo) was little, chunky, and very, very smart. The second Eddie (your standard Edward) was tall, skinny, and musically very, very talented.
Finally, there was me: Edwin. I was the youngest and the least smart or talented, and was even called by some “Little Eddie”. I discouraged all of that when I was twelve. Now that I’m a bit long in the tooth and silver around the temples, Eddie just doesn’t fit. However, there’s still some little kid in me.
One aspect of my personality, especially noted by my sons, is that I often over analyze people and events. “Dad, you think too much!” they frequently accuse me.
Well, from a purely political standpoint, I haven’t been this pleased since Jimmy Carter was President-Elect thirty-two years ago. For the most part, it has been a gratifying time. However, my reading and conversational habits have lately gotten in the way.
About a month ago, I decided that, as a student of history, I hadn’t read enough about the notorious Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Had someone asked me about him and “what made him tick” as they say, I couldn’t have told them much. So, I consulted my local library. I’ve been reading not only the latest Stalin biography, but I’ve also just finished a book comparing and contrasting Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
Such reading can hurriedly transform the most full-throated optimist into a quivering cynic. To read once again how Adolph Hitler transformed his rejection as an art student by the University of Vienna and his subsequent squalid Vienna existence into hatred of undeserving peoples is mind-boggling. Then, to read how Joseph Stalin used his alcoholic father’s abuse and the bullying he received by bigger kids in the neighborhood into a lifelong determination to achieve revenge through power and dominance is almost enough to surrender to the ideological Conservatives’ insistence that men, especially ambitious men, are basically evil.
One of the finest men I know is a devout ideological Conservative and Christian gentleman. He insists essentially that men are fallen and not trustworthy, especially when it comes to the establishment of government. He believes that America, “endowed by her creator” as it says in our Declaration of Independence, having been founded as a Christian nation, is an exception as long as it conforms to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Okay, fair enough -- but my friend, who is also a devoted capitalist, doesn’t seem to acknowledge evil when it comes to the accumulation of “capital”, or if you prefer, money. Government, he acknowledges (the more local, the better, of course) rightfully controls crime, but it should never attempt to regulate the “free market”. Thus, America, as long as it lives up to the basic Ten and doesn’t regulate capital, is a special place reasonably devoid of evil and certainly far more worthy than the rest of God’s creation which contains men and women of other faiths and political systems.
Notice I said above, nearly devoid of evil. There is of course a most vexing American “evil”. You guessed it: it’s called “Liberalism”. Liberalism, after all, is almost devoid of all principle -- with the exception of class envy, of course, and a tendency to worship at the troth of relativism and secularism, where people too often try to figure things out rather than simply accepting the teachings of St. Paul and Milton Friedman.
I’ve endorsed most of the tenants of Liberalism in recent years. I do believe that everyone has an obligation to share through both charity and taxation. I also strongly support equality of opportunity. (Note: As for America being a “Christian” nation, President John Adams’ State Department informed the Moslems of Tripoli in 1797 that America officially endorsed no religion including Christianity.) I believe that people’s individual backgrounds do dictate not the excuses but the reasons for people’s behavior. However, just as I get comfortable with that conclusion, someone throws me a curve that nearly drives me to my Conservative friend’s point of view.
This week it was Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s alleged attempt to sell President-Elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. If the highly regarded Chicago-based Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is to be believed, the government
has proof of the deed obtained through an authorized wiretap. The Senate and the President-Elect have both properly distanced themselves from the beleaguered governor. Conservative talk show hosts are sporting genuinely happy smiles for the first time since November 4th, believing as they do that there’s just got to be a link between Blagojevich and Barack Obama.
So, you ask, what’s the point of all this? The answer is simple—Eddie’s incredulity! I just don’t get it. I’m repelled, of course, by both Hitlerism and Stalinism. I don’t, as I once did, buy ideological Conservatism. Even more, I’m almost just as repelled by the lesser sins of Governor Blagojevich. It’s hard to believe that Governor Blagojevich would even consider subjecting President-Elect Obama’s name to such shabby behavior. The little kid in me, once called Eddie, wants to kick and scream at Governor Blagojevich, even more than at self-satisfied Conservative talk show hosts and personal friends.
Throughout our lives, most of us seek to identify and establish the boundaries between right and wrong, good and evil. We do this for the most part because we try not to step over those lines.
Occasionally, however, someone who is too close for comfort to someone special does step over one of those lines -- and Eddie starts fretting again!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
It’s all true, of course. While growing up, everyone called me Eddie. I was the youngest of three Eddies who attended our residential School for the Blind. One Eddie (Edgardo) was little, chunky, and very, very smart. The second Eddie (your standard Edward) was tall, skinny, and musically very, very talented.
Finally, there was me: Edwin. I was the youngest and the least smart or talented, and was even called by some “Little Eddie”. I discouraged all of that when I was twelve. Now that I’m a bit long in the tooth and silver around the temples, Eddie just doesn’t fit. However, there’s still some little kid in me.
One aspect of my personality, especially noted by my sons, is that I often over analyze people and events. “Dad, you think too much!” they frequently accuse me.
Well, from a purely political standpoint, I haven’t been this pleased since Jimmy Carter was President-Elect thirty-two years ago. For the most part, it has been a gratifying time. However, my reading and conversational habits have lately gotten in the way.
About a month ago, I decided that, as a student of history, I hadn’t read enough about the notorious Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. Had someone asked me about him and “what made him tick” as they say, I couldn’t have told them much. So, I consulted my local library. I’ve been reading not only the latest Stalin biography, but I’ve also just finished a book comparing and contrasting Joseph Stalin and Adolph Hitler.
Such reading can hurriedly transform the most full-throated optimist into a quivering cynic. To read once again how Adolph Hitler transformed his rejection as an art student by the University of Vienna and his subsequent squalid Vienna existence into hatred of undeserving peoples is mind-boggling. Then, to read how Joseph Stalin used his alcoholic father’s abuse and the bullying he received by bigger kids in the neighborhood into a lifelong determination to achieve revenge through power and dominance is almost enough to surrender to the ideological Conservatives’ insistence that men, especially ambitious men, are basically evil.
One of the finest men I know is a devout ideological Conservative and Christian gentleman. He insists essentially that men are fallen and not trustworthy, especially when it comes to the establishment of government. He believes that America, “endowed by her creator” as it says in our Declaration of Independence, having been founded as a Christian nation, is an exception as long as it conforms to the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Okay, fair enough -- but my friend, who is also a devoted capitalist, doesn’t seem to acknowledge evil when it comes to the accumulation of “capital”, or if you prefer, money. Government, he acknowledges (the more local, the better, of course) rightfully controls crime, but it should never attempt to regulate the “free market”. Thus, America, as long as it lives up to the basic Ten and doesn’t regulate capital, is a special place reasonably devoid of evil and certainly far more worthy than the rest of God’s creation which contains men and women of other faiths and political systems.
Notice I said above, nearly devoid of evil. There is of course a most vexing American “evil”. You guessed it: it’s called “Liberalism”. Liberalism, after all, is almost devoid of all principle -- with the exception of class envy, of course, and a tendency to worship at the troth of relativism and secularism, where people too often try to figure things out rather than simply accepting the teachings of St. Paul and Milton Friedman.
I’ve endorsed most of the tenants of Liberalism in recent years. I do believe that everyone has an obligation to share through both charity and taxation. I also strongly support equality of opportunity. (Note: As for America being a “Christian” nation, President John Adams’ State Department informed the Moslems of Tripoli in 1797 that America officially endorsed no religion including Christianity.) I believe that people’s individual backgrounds do dictate not the excuses but the reasons for people’s behavior. However, just as I get comfortable with that conclusion, someone throws me a curve that nearly drives me to my Conservative friend’s point of view.
This week it was Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s alleged attempt to sell President-Elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. If the highly regarded Chicago-based Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is to be believed, the government
has proof of the deed obtained through an authorized wiretap. The Senate and the President-Elect have both properly distanced themselves from the beleaguered governor. Conservative talk show hosts are sporting genuinely happy smiles for the first time since November 4th, believing as they do that there’s just got to be a link between Blagojevich and Barack Obama.
So, you ask, what’s the point of all this? The answer is simple—Eddie’s incredulity! I just don’t get it. I’m repelled, of course, by both Hitlerism and Stalinism. I don’t, as I once did, buy ideological Conservatism. Even more, I’m almost just as repelled by the lesser sins of Governor Blagojevich. It’s hard to believe that Governor Blagojevich would even consider subjecting President-Elect Obama’s name to such shabby behavior. The little kid in me, once called Eddie, wants to kick and scream at Governor Blagojevich, even more than at self-satisfied Conservative talk show hosts and personal friends.
Throughout our lives, most of us seek to identify and establish the boundaries between right and wrong, good and evil. We do this for the most part because we try not to step over those lines.
Occasionally, however, someone who is too close for comfort to someone special does step over one of those lines -- and Eddie starts fretting again!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, December 8, 2008
ZACHARY TAYLOR—A MAN AMONG PRESIDENTS!
By Edwin Cooney
“Stop your nonsense and drink your whiskey,” General Zachary Taylor is said to have responded to the Whig Party politician who first broached the idea of his running for President of the United States.
He was sixty-four years old when he was elected America’s twelfth president and he’d never voted in his life -- let alone run for any political office. He wasn’t particularly famous until he was sixty-one when, during the Mexican War, he prevailed at the Battle of Palo Alto on May 8th, 1846. Despite being outnumbered two to one, using superior firepower, he overwhelmed Mexico’s General Mariano Arista thus driving him well south of the Rio Grande, our demarcation of the American Mexican border.
For that spectacular victory he was made a Brevet Major General and received a formal letter of thanks from Congress for “the enterprise, skill and courage” he demonstrated in operations on the Rio Grande.
However, although he drove Mexican General Pedro de Ampudia’s superior forces from the city of Monterey, on September 25th, 1846, he was severely reprimanded by the Polk Administration for allowing the Mexicans to get away with all of their sidearms and even some artillery in exchange for occupying the city. Even more, he’d agreed not to pursue de Ampudia for eight weeks. Taylor replied that the United States had an obligation to limit bloodshed as well as show magnanimity when it could even during wartime. The Polk Administration subsequently stripped Taylor of about two-thirds of his forces and turned them over to General Winfield Scott. Taylor, rather than resigning his command as he believed he was being pressured to do, continued on with a much reduced army. Still he continued to conquer.
On February 23rd, 1847 at the Battle of Buena Vista, “Old Rough and Ready” (as he had long been called) defeated the infamous General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Santa Anna, you’ll recall, was the Mexican general who had slaughtered Colonel Travis, Jim Bowie, and the legendary Davy Crockett at the Battle of the Alamo in 1836. As he had done eleven years previously, Santa Anna warned Taylor (who was outnumbered four to one) that if he didn’t surrender, he and all of his men would be slaughtered. Like Colonel Travis before him, Taylor refused to surrender, but unlike Travis, Taylor prevailed and Santa Anna retreated. Thus a genuine war hero, Zachary Taylor became a leading Whig Party candidate for President of the United States.
Nominated on the fourth ballot at the June 1848 Whig Party Convention, candidate Taylor inadvertently refused to accept the letter sent him by the convention’s chairman notifying him of his nomination. Back then, postage was often paid by the recipient rather than the sender of letters. As a Mexican War hero, Taylor was getting so many unpaid letters from all over the country that he requested that unpaid mail should not be delivered to him. Hence, official notification that he was the Whig presidential nominee landed in the dead letter office. Finally, the Whig Convention chairman realized what had happened and sent General Taylor a postage paid notification of his nomination which he, of course, accepted. That November 7th, Taylor defeated Lewis Cass of Michigan, the Democratic nominee, by collecting 1,260,101 popular votes to Cass’s 1,220,544. In the Electoral College, General Taylor defeated Senator Cass 163 to 127. Taylor and Cass each carried fifteen states. Although Zachary Taylor became the fourth president elected from a state other than his native state, he became the first president to be elected while losing his native state (Virginia) to his opponent. By 1848, Taylor was a resident of the state of Louisiana.
Zachary Taylor’s presidency would last for only sixteen months and four days—March 5th, 1849 to July 9th, 1850. His presidential achievements were few in number and small in consequence.
In December 1849, he signed a Treaty of Amity with the Hawaiian Islands. Less than three months before Taylor’s untimely death, the Senate ratified the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain in April 1850 which declared that any canal built through Central America would be open to all shipping and would be the property of no nation. (It would be abrogated by the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty in 1901.)
That was it. The Taylor Presidency would mostly reflect the person of the president.
Zachary Taylor, named after his paternal grandfather, was born on November 24th, 1784 in Montebello, Orange County, Virginia. His parents, Richard and Sarah (Sally) Dabney Strother Taylor, had stopped at Montebello on their way west to their new home near Louisville, Kentucky.
Richard Taylor was a well-to-do planter who owned some 10,000 acres of land in Kentucky. The elder Taylor had served in the Continental Army during the Revolution and eventually served as a Justice of the Peace and as a county magistrate in northern Kentucky.
President Taylor’s mother, Sally Taylor, a well-educated woman for her time, suffered from a disabling injury when molten led was spilled on her hands while she was helping make bullets—perhaps during the American Revolution. She would give birth to eight children, Zachary being her third child.
On May 3, 1808, young Taylor was assigned First Lieutenant of the Seventh Army Regiment in Indiana territory. For the next forty years, with only a brief interruption in 1815-16, he would be a soldier. A veteran of the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War 1832, the second Seminole War (1837-40), he would be known as an “Indian fighter.” What stands out most however is who he was.
By birth, he was the second cousin of President James Madison—who was also Virginia- born. That means that he and Madison shared a great grandfather. He was a fourth cousin once removed of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, which means that he and FDR’s great great great grandfathers were first cousins once removed.
In 1835, Zachary Taylor’s second oldest daughter, Sarah Knox Taylor, married Jefferson Davis who would go on to be the President of the Confederate States of America. Taylor opposed the match because he didn’t want his daughter to have to live the life of a military officer’s wife. It is even said that Davis and Taylor considered settling their differences in a duel, but that didn’t happen. The couple was married on June 17th, 1835 near Louisville, Kentucky and settled in Mississippi. Tragically, while visiting friends near St. Francisville, Louisiana in September of that year, both came down with malaria. Davis recovered, but Sarah died.
President Taylor was personally affable -- especially gallant around women – straight-forward in speech and when expressing his opinions, politically unsophisticated, and even occasionally naive. He stood about five feet eight inches and weighed about two hundred pounds as President. He had short bowed legs, long gangly arms, a long thin face with a long nose, all topped by thick graying hair. He habitually stood with one hand behind his back.
Although he was constitutionally required to take the presidential oath at noon on March 4th, 1849, that date fell on a Sunday for the second time in our history. President Taylor, perhaps out of respect for his extremely religious wife Margaret (Peggy) Mackall Smith, refrained from taking the presidential oath on the Sabbath. President James Knox Polk’s term ended at noon the day before. Thus, for twenty-four hours America was technically without a president. However, some believe that David Rice Atchison of Missouri, then serving as Senate President Pro Tempore during that twenty-four hour time period was in fact our twelfth president. When Atchison died in 1886 the state of Missouri paid $15,000 for his monument which states that Senator Atchison was President of the United States for one day. Under the Judiciary Act of 1792, the President Pro Tempore ranked behind the Vice President in order of succession to the presidency. (Note: The 1792 Judiciary Act was amended by the Judiciary Act of 1887 which placed the Secretary of State in line behind the Vice President. That was further amended by the Judiciary Act of 1947 which places the Speaker of the House, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate behind the Vice President, followed by the cabinet largely in order of office seniority beginning with the Secretary of State.)
The major issue facing President Taylor, as it did all presidents at the time, was slavery. Although master of one hundred slaves, President Taylor opposed the expansion of slavery. He warned those congressmen who threatened to lead a secession movement that if they did, he’d hang them quicker than he’d hung deserters during the Mexican War. There was also a border dispute between slave-holding Texas and the free territory of New Mexico which President Taylor suggested should be settled by the Supreme Court. When Texans threatened to invade New Mexico, Taylor told them that if they did, he’d personally lead troops against them.
President Taylor believed it was unconstitutional for the government to involve itself in any way in the slavery question. He let it be known that he’d veto the “Compromise of 1850,” then being debated in Congress, which would admit California as a free state, end the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and institute the fugitive slave law. His position on the slavery issue was much like that of those who today oppose gay marriage. He insisted that if the government could make slavery lawful or unlawful it could dictate the relationship between husbands and wives—thus his opposition.
Thursday, July 4th, 1850 was, as usual, hot in Washington. President Taylor attended Independence Day ceremonies and laid the cornerstone at the newly constructed Washington monument. He listened to two hours of patriotic speeches before heading back to the White House. Hot and thoroughly exhausted, the President refreshed himself by wolfing down a bowl of cherries and a pitcher of ice milk. He was painfully ill within hours. His physician, Dr. Alexander S. Wotherspoon diagnosed cholera morbus which was common in summertime Washington, D.C. where unsanitary conditions often made it dangerous to consume locally grown fruit or dairy products.
The President recovered briefly on July 5th, but soon the illness took hold. On July 9th, the President knew he was dying. His last words around six p.m. were, “I’m dying and I expect the summons soon. I regret nothing, but I am sorry to be leaving my friends.”
It’s fitting somehow that Zachary Taylor, plain and always unpretentious, is remembered more as a man than as a president. It’s not hard, somehow, to believe that Zachary Taylor would prefer it just that way!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 24, 2008
THANKSGIVING—FOR WHAT SHOULD WE BE MOST THANKFUL?
By Edwin Cooney
Originally posted November 24, 2006
Okay! Let’s start from the very beginning.
Once upon a time there lived at the very eastern tip of present day Massachusetts, a colony of Anglican Church separatists whom we today call Pilgrims. They arrived in the New World on December 21st in the “year of our Lord” 1620. As every third grader knows, the Pilgrims suffered terribly during their first winter in the colony they called Plymouth.
By March 1621, their number had dwindled from 102 to 56. One of those lost was the wife of Governor William Bradford who, even before their little ship called the Mayflower landed, had drawn up the agreement they all promised to live under which we know as the Mayflower Compact.
Out of the forest that first spring came what seemed to be a gift from God. His name was Squanto and he was a member of the local Wampanoag Indian tribe. Miraculously, Squanto happened to speak English. (Note: Some believe he was an Indian named Tisquantum who had been captured by an English slave ship in 1615 while others think Squanto was an Indian named Tasquantum who had visited England as far back as 1605.) Even more miraculously, Squanto was eager to provide day in and day out assistance to the new arrivals. Still more wonderful, as well as practical, Squanto moved into Governor Bradford’s home where he remained -- providing invaluable advice and considerable labor -- for over a year until his death from a fever sometime in 1622.
Soon after moving in, Squanto introduced the new colonists to his local chief who was called Samoset. Samoset henceforth introduced Governor Bradford’s constituents to his Grand Chief Massasoit . (Actually, Massasoit, the name by which the Chief is most famous, is his title. His name was Wasamegin). Thus, throughout 1621 the new colonists were provided not only with plenty of assistance when it came to planting crops and hunting local fish, foul and game, but also with protection against possible attack by other potentially hostile Indian tribes.
By October 1621, the Pilgrims realized their first harvest and were ready to celebrate. Thus 92 Wampanoag Indians—which most certainly included Squanto and perhaps even Samoset and Massasoit—were invited to dinner.
It was quite a dinner! It lasted for three days. On the menu were lobster, clams, other fish, watercress, boiled pumpkin—there was no flour or butter so pumpkin pie, if it existed then, even in Europe, was out—corn, dried fruit, fresh plumbs venison and turkey.
Note—There is considerable debate as to whether or not wild turkey was actually served. Some sources say not and assert that turkey was another name for almost any wild foul. Thus it is likely that pheasant, goose and perhaps seven duck were actually on the menu rather than turkey.
Though supposedly a good time was had by all at that very first Thanksgiving, there was no Thanksgiving celebration or harvest feast in 1622. However, in 1623, when a long drought was ended the day that followed a period of intensive prayer by the devout Pilgrims, Governor Bradford once again called for a Thanksgiving feast. Once again, a large delegation of Wampanoags was invited. That was the last Thanksgiving held by the colonists until June 1676.
By that time, the Plymouth colony of the separatists or “Pilgrims” had been absorbed by a more establishment-oriented religious group known as Puritans. The Puritans were more mainstream Anglican than had been the separatist Pilgrims. They had established, beginning in 1629, a much more secular state and one which had much greater favor with the establishment in Britain. (It should be noted that the Puritans under the great General Oliver Cromwell deposed Charles the First and ruled England during the 1650s). Thus, the Thanksgiving celebration in 1676 was a celebration of something much more traditional in Britain back then, a celebration of victory in war.
With the passing of William Bradford and the absorption of the original Pilgrim-separatists by the Puritans of Boston and points west in Massachusetts colony, more and more outbreaks of hostility occurred with regional Indian tribes. The most powerful of the Indian Chiefs was Metacom, the son of Massasoit, the great savior of the Pilgrims of 1620-21. By the 1670s, all of the potentially hostile New England tribes except the Wampanoags had been subdued and now it was time for the Puritans of Boston to complete Indian subjugation. Metacom, known by then as King Philip because of his European dress and manners, was hard to conquer — but ultimately the Puritans prevailed.
Thus the third Thanksgiving in colonial history was an expression to the Almighty of a distinctly different type of gratitude. The great Wampanoag chief was indeed present although this time only physically rather than spiritually. His physical attendance was as something of a decoration. His presence was his head atop a pole in downtown Boston.
One hundred one years later, in October 1777, all thirteen colonies celebrated Thanksgiving together for the first time. As was the case in 1676, gratitude was expressed to the Almighty for victory in war as much as for any consumable bounty. Specifically, the colonists were celebrating their stunning victory over the British army at Saratoga.
In October 1789, President Washington proclaimed another Thanksgiving in celebration of the new nation, but it wasn’t particularly popular. Many Americans simply refused to be much excited about celebrating the triumph of New England colonists over hardship—since they felt that they’d had plenty of their own hardships. Thomas Jefferson is said to have actually scoffed at the idea of a day of national Thanksgiving. During the War of 1812, President James Madison reluctantly proclaimed a day of national Thanksgiving.
When all is said and done, the real founder of our traditional celebration of Thanksgiving is a Victorian New England widow named Sarah Josepha Hale. Mrs. Hale was born Sarah Josepha Buell on October 24th,1788 in Newport, New Hampshire, the daughter of Captain Gordon and Martha Whittlesay Buell. She was educated by her mother and her brother Horatio, who taught her much of what he’d learned at Dartmouth. Sarah married David Hale, a lawyer, in 1813. Following David Hale’s death in 1822, his Mason Lodge put up the funds for Sarah to start a magazine which she ultimately called the “American Ladies’ Magazine”. It consisted of her own poetry and editorials pushing her pet causes, especially educational and economic independence for women.
During the late 1830s when America was suffering from a severe depression, Sarah Hale’s “American Ladies’ Magazine” was purchased by Louis Antoine Godey who installed Sarah Hale as its Editor-in-Chief, a position she held for most of the rest of her life.
Ever since the mid-1820s, Sarah Hale had been petitioning American presidents on behalf of one of her favorite causes, an annual National Day of Thanksgiving. She finally succeeded in persuading President Abraham Lincoln to make such a proclamation in November 1863. Every president since has issued a Proclamation of Thanksgiving.
During the late 1930s, FDR sought to make the second to last Thursday of November Thanksgiving Day in order to maximize the time for shopping between Thanksgiving and Christmas. This effort met with considerable resistance and so FDR moved Thanksgiving to the fourth Thursday of every November.
Congress finally made it all official in 1941. Since then the fourth Thursday in November has been our national day of gratitude to “nature’s God” for, among other blessings, the generous bounty of our national resources.
As you can readily see, if you accept the observations of this account, our celebration and the reasons for offering thanks have been inconsistent in their practice as well as in the purpose of our expressed gratitude.
The question then is: for what should we be most thankful?
I would suggest that in addition to our lives, our safety and our health, we ought to be most grateful for whatever wisdom we can muster as we progress along the Road of Civilization.
Life can be very fragile. However, in its very fragility we often discover its value. All of us have experienced too many instances when life has suddenly and irrevocably ceased to exist. Thus we’ve been separated from people whose knowledge, love and guidance we sorely need. Their absence brings in its wake a void of loneliness, pain, and even despair.
It seems to me that Sarah Josepha Hale, given her numerous socio/religious causes such as abolitionism and increased opportunities and responsibilities for women, came closest to the greatest human need required throughout the life of any truly great society.
Therefore, I think we ought to be most thankful for wisdom. Because it appears in so many unpredictable moods and guises, wisdom isn’t easy to identify. It isn’t always easy to experience it once it’s offered. However, once it’s received and applied, wisdom, as God’s greatest blessing, is the fruit that surely nurtures this and all Thanksgivings to come!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Originally posted November 24, 2006
Okay! Let’s start from the very beginning.
Once upon a time there lived at the very eastern tip of present day Massachusetts, a colony of Anglican Church separatists whom we today call Pilgrims. They arrived in the New World on December 21st in the “year of our Lord” 1620. As every third grader knows, the Pilgrims suffered terribly during their first winter in the colony they called Plymouth.
By March 1621, their number had dwindled from 102 to 56. One of those lost was the wife of Governor William Bradford who, even before their little ship called the Mayflower landed, had drawn up the agreement they all promised to live under which we know as the Mayflower Compact.
Out of the forest that first spring came what seemed to be a gift from God. His name was Squanto and he was a member of the local Wampanoag Indian tribe. Miraculously, Squanto happened to speak English. (Note: Some believe he was an Indian named Tisquantum who had been captured by an English slave ship in 1615 while others think Squanto was an Indian named Tasquantum who had visited England as far back as 1605.) Even more miraculously, Squanto was eager to provide day in and day out assistance to the new arrivals. Still more wonderful, as well as practical, Squanto moved into Governor Bradford’s home where he remained -- providing invaluable advice and considerable labor -- for over a year until his death from a fever sometime in 1622.
Soon after moving in, Squanto introduced the new colonists to his local chief who was called Samoset. Samoset henceforth introduced Governor Bradford’s constituents to his Grand Chief Massasoit . (Actually, Massasoit, the name by which the Chief is most famous, is his title. His name was Wasamegin). Thus, throughout 1621 the new colonists were provided not only with plenty of assistance when it came to planting crops and hunting local fish, foul and game, but also with protection against possible attack by other potentially hostile Indian tribes.
By October 1621, the Pilgrims realized their first harvest and were ready to celebrate. Thus 92 Wampanoag Indians—which most certainly included Squanto and perhaps even Samoset and Massasoit—were invited to dinner.
It was quite a dinner! It lasted for three days. On the menu were lobster, clams, other fish, watercress, boiled pumpkin—there was no flour or butter so pumpkin pie, if it existed then, even in Europe, was out—corn, dried fruit, fresh plumbs venison and turkey.
Note—There is considerable debate as to whether or not wild turkey was actually served. Some sources say not and assert that turkey was another name for almost any wild foul. Thus it is likely that pheasant, goose and perhaps seven duck were actually on the menu rather than turkey.
Though supposedly a good time was had by all at that very first Thanksgiving, there was no Thanksgiving celebration or harvest feast in 1622. However, in 1623, when a long drought was ended the day that followed a period of intensive prayer by the devout Pilgrims, Governor Bradford once again called for a Thanksgiving feast. Once again, a large delegation of Wampanoags was invited. That was the last Thanksgiving held by the colonists until June 1676.
By that time, the Plymouth colony of the separatists or “Pilgrims” had been absorbed by a more establishment-oriented religious group known as Puritans. The Puritans were more mainstream Anglican than had been the separatist Pilgrims. They had established, beginning in 1629, a much more secular state and one which had much greater favor with the establishment in Britain. (It should be noted that the Puritans under the great General Oliver Cromwell deposed Charles the First and ruled England during the 1650s). Thus, the Thanksgiving celebration in 1676 was a celebration of something much more traditional in Britain back then, a celebration of victory in war.
With the passing of William Bradford and the absorption of the original Pilgrim-separatists by the Puritans of Boston and points west in Massachusetts colony, more and more outbreaks of hostility occurred with regional Indian tribes. The most powerful of the Indian Chiefs was Metacom, the son of Massasoit, the great savior of the Pilgrims of 1620-21. By the 1670s, all of the potentially hostile New England tribes except the Wampanoags had been subdued and now it was time for the Puritans of Boston to complete Indian subjugation. Metacom, known by then as King Philip because of his European dress and manners, was hard to conquer — but ultimately the Puritans prevailed.
Thus the third Thanksgiving in colonial history was an expression to the Almighty of a distinctly different type of gratitude. The great Wampanoag chief was indeed present although this time only physically rather than spiritually. His physical attendance was as something of a decoration. His presence was his head atop a pole in downtown Boston.
One hundred one years later, in October 1777, all thirteen colonies celebrated Thanksgiving together for the first time. As was the case in 1676, gratitude was expressed to the Almighty for victory in war as much as for any consumable bounty. Specifically, the colonists were celebrating their stunning victory over the British army at Saratoga.
In October 1789, President Washington proclaimed another Thanksgiving in celebration of the new nation, but it wasn’t particularly popular. Many Americans simply refused to be much excited about celebrating the triumph of New England colonists over hardship—since they felt that they’d had plenty of their own hardships. Thomas Jefferson is said to have actually scoffed at the idea of a day of national Thanksgiving. During the War of 1812, President James Madison reluctantly proclaimed a day of national Thanksgiving.
When all is said and done, the real founder of our traditional celebration of Thanksgiving is a Victorian New England widow named Sarah Josepha Hale. Mrs. Hale was born Sarah Josepha Buell on October 24th,1788 in Newport, New Hampshire, the daughter of Captain Gordon and Martha Whittlesay Buell. She was educated by her mother and her brother Horatio, who taught her much of what he’d learned at Dartmouth. Sarah married David Hale, a lawyer, in 1813. Following David Hale’s death in 1822, his Mason Lodge put up the funds for Sarah to start a magazine which she ultimately called the “American Ladies’ Magazine”. It consisted of her own poetry and editorials pushing her pet causes, especially educational and economic independence for women.
During the late 1830s when America was suffering from a severe depression, Sarah Hale’s “American Ladies’ Magazine” was purchased by Louis Antoine Godey who installed Sarah Hale as its Editor-in-Chief, a position she held for most of the rest of her life.
Ever since the mid-1820s, Sarah Hale had been petitioning American presidents on behalf of one of her favorite causes, an annual National Day of Thanksgiving. She finally succeeded in persuading President Abraham Lincoln to make such a proclamation in November 1863. Every president since has issued a Proclamation of Thanksgiving.
During the late 1930s, FDR sought to make the second to last Thursday of November Thanksgiving Day in order to maximize the time for shopping between Thanksgiving and Christmas. This effort met with considerable resistance and so FDR moved Thanksgiving to the fourth Thursday of every November.
Congress finally made it all official in 1941. Since then the fourth Thursday in November has been our national day of gratitude to “nature’s God” for, among other blessings, the generous bounty of our national resources.
As you can readily see, if you accept the observations of this account, our celebration and the reasons for offering thanks have been inconsistent in their practice as well as in the purpose of our expressed gratitude.
The question then is: for what should we be most thankful?
I would suggest that in addition to our lives, our safety and our health, we ought to be most grateful for whatever wisdom we can muster as we progress along the Road of Civilization.
Life can be very fragile. However, in its very fragility we often discover its value. All of us have experienced too many instances when life has suddenly and irrevocably ceased to exist. Thus we’ve been separated from people whose knowledge, love and guidance we sorely need. Their absence brings in its wake a void of loneliness, pain, and even despair.
It seems to me that Sarah Josepha Hale, given her numerous socio/religious causes such as abolitionism and increased opportunities and responsibilities for women, came closest to the greatest human need required throughout the life of any truly great society.
Therefore, I think we ought to be most thankful for wisdom. Because it appears in so many unpredictable moods and guises, wisdom isn’t easy to identify. It isn’t always easy to experience it once it’s offered. However, once it’s received and applied, wisdom, as God’s greatest blessing, is the fruit that surely nurtures this and all Thanksgivings to come!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 17, 2008
THE CHANGING OF THE GUARD—IT CAN BE VERY PERSONAL
By Edwin Cooney
Okay! I wasn’t all that worried last Monday as President-Elect Obama and his wife Michelle visited the Bush’s. What was frustrating, however, was not knowing how well the two men got along, especially since the public end of the meeting came before the business end. Had the public part of the meeting occurred as the two men departed, a few sharp observers would surely have let all of us know what the visible signs were for either a smooth or stormy presidential transition.
Only ten times in our history has a defeated incumbent president turned his office over to a political opponent and it’s true that this wasn’t one of those times. Still, the process can be quite touchy.
The first time was in February 1801 when, because none of the top three candidates had a majority in the Electoral College, the election was decided by the House of Representatives. The incumbent John Adams was, for both political and personal reasons, reluctant to turn his office over to Vice President Thomas Jefferson. Author David McCullough reports, in his authoritative John Adams biography, that Adams never discussed publicly what went on between the two men during the struggle for House votes that February. However, Jefferson wrote later that he’d gone to the president’s mansion hoping to get Adams to use his prestige with Federalist congressmen. He wanted them to stop putting conditions on their support for a Jefferson victory in the House. Adams immediately showed his displeasure by addressing Jefferson in a manner unlike any he’d used in the past. He refused to urge Federalist congressman to abandon their demands. They wanted Jefferson to retain Federalist appointees, maintain the strength of the Navy, and they also wanted Jefferson to pay Federalist creditors. Adams acknowledged that the government would be Jefferson’s because “…we know it is the wish of the people it should be so,” but a warm friendship of decades had turned temporarily hostile. It would ultimately be resumed across the veil of time and distance but it didn’t bode well for the first historic transfer of political power and presidential authority in America.
John Quincy Adams surrendered the government to Andrew Jackson in 1829, but the two men didn’t meet before Adams’ early departure on Jackson’s March 4th Inauguration Day.
I’ve found no record of what Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison had to say to one another on March 4th, 1841 or what Benjamin Harrison (the elder Harrison’s grandson) had to say in 1889 and 1893 to Grover Cleveland as they twice exchanged the presidency. However, the 1913 transfer of the presidency between William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson was a bit notable. Taft, who not only lost to Wilson, but also to Theodore Roosevelt, stayed on for Wilson’s inauguration and then accompanied the new president back to the White House. Not only did he stay for lunch, he lingered to talk with Wilson to the extent that both the new president’s staff and Taft’s people grew uncomfortable. Taft had a train to catch and Wilson had an administration to begin, but the outgoing president was clearly reluctant to leave.
Nineteen-thirty-three was a landmark year in American history. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected over incumbent Republican President Herbert Clark Hoover back on November 8th, 1932, had nearly four months before taking office. The Hoover administration sought to bring FDR into the decision-making process on several occasions. FDR, however, almost completely avoided the politically toxic Hoover. The payback appeared to come late on the afternoon of Friday, March 3rd when President-Elect Roosevelt paid a courtesy call on President Hoover. FDR’s son James wrote that their social call was scheduled for teatime (at four o’clock) and that they arrived at the White House going through the south portico door for FDR’s convenience. They then took the elevator up to the first floor. They had to wait for thirty minutes until President Hoover arrived with Ogden Mills, the Treasury Secretary. When FDR firmly but politely refused to conduct business, they downed their tea and prepared to leave. FDR told the president that in view of his physical condition and the time it would take for him to get to his feet and leave the room, he’d understand if the president didn’t wait for him. Hoover’s response was to tell FDR coldly that he’d understand after being president for a while that the President of the United States waits for no one. Some accounts of this meeting assert that FDR stubbornly refused to be seated while waiting for Hoover’s arrival and that Hoover, knowing he would assume that posture on painfully crippled legs, deliberately kept him waiting.
Although they weren’t opponents in 1952, when President Truman and President-Elect Eisenhower met after the election, their former personal ease evaporated—a casualty of the late political campaign. Their one White House meeting was exceedingly stiff. When President-Elect Eisenhower’s car pulled up to the White House on Inauguration Day 1953, Ike waited in the car for the President to emerge from the White House. When Truman did arrive, Ike, as they drove to the Capitol, demanded to know why his son John, then serving in Korea, had been called home for the inauguration. Was it done to embarrass the incoming president, Ike wondered. Truman’s response was:
“He came home because he was ordered to do so by the President of the United States so that he could see his father inaugurated as his Commander-in-Chief.”
Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford were opponents in 1976, but both men allowed politics to recede into the background during the transition. President Carter’s first words after taking the oath of office on January 20th, 1977 were: "For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter eventually became friends for life.
The relationship between Presidents Carter and Reagan was polite but formal. President Reagan followed President Carter’s example by thanking the outgoing Chief Executive for his public service. However, President Carter said later that their personal meeting was less productive than it could have been because President-Elect Reagan seemed uninterested in some documentation Carter wanted Mr. Reagan to see. Carter said Reagan just stared glassily off into the distance and said that his staff would bring him up to date on such information.
As for the transitions between Clinton and George H. W. Bush and between Clinton and George W. Bush, I have no information. However, President Bush apparently called President Clinton last Monday to remind him of and thank him once again for the very gracious way President Clinton had received him eight years ago.
As for last Monday, President Bush said nothing of what had been agreed to or what remained at issue between Barack Obama and himself on the subjects of the unstable economy here at home and the uncertainties abroad. However, President Bush seems to have been touched by President-Elect Obama’s insistence on visiting the rooms where his two little girls would be sleeping.
"Clearly, this guy is going to bring a great sense of family to the White House," Bush said. "I hope Laura and I did the same thing, but I believe he will and I know his girls are on his mind and he wants to make sure that first and foremost he is a good dad. And I think that's going to be an important part of his presidency."
That observation coming from a “family values” doctrine-oriented “conservative” has to be seen as something of a complement. In this era of doctrinaire politics and “the culture war”, any acknowledgment by one side of an opponent’s humanity is a most encouraging thing. For years I’ve asserted that the human dynamic among our leaders is not only important but that it is as essential to our ultimate success or failure as a society as any official strategy, document or policy.
In the final analysis, all that we read and observe about America’s past, present and future is personal because it personally matters to you and to me. Hence the experience of surrendering and receiving the awesome duties, power and responsibility of the presidency can hardly be any less personal—can it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Okay! I wasn’t all that worried last Monday as President-Elect Obama and his wife Michelle visited the Bush’s. What was frustrating, however, was not knowing how well the two men got along, especially since the public end of the meeting came before the business end. Had the public part of the meeting occurred as the two men departed, a few sharp observers would surely have let all of us know what the visible signs were for either a smooth or stormy presidential transition.
Only ten times in our history has a defeated incumbent president turned his office over to a political opponent and it’s true that this wasn’t one of those times. Still, the process can be quite touchy.
The first time was in February 1801 when, because none of the top three candidates had a majority in the Electoral College, the election was decided by the House of Representatives. The incumbent John Adams was, for both political and personal reasons, reluctant to turn his office over to Vice President Thomas Jefferson. Author David McCullough reports, in his authoritative John Adams biography, that Adams never discussed publicly what went on between the two men during the struggle for House votes that February. However, Jefferson wrote later that he’d gone to the president’s mansion hoping to get Adams to use his prestige with Federalist congressmen. He wanted them to stop putting conditions on their support for a Jefferson victory in the House. Adams immediately showed his displeasure by addressing Jefferson in a manner unlike any he’d used in the past. He refused to urge Federalist congressman to abandon their demands. They wanted Jefferson to retain Federalist appointees, maintain the strength of the Navy, and they also wanted Jefferson to pay Federalist creditors. Adams acknowledged that the government would be Jefferson’s because “…we know it is the wish of the people it should be so,” but a warm friendship of decades had turned temporarily hostile. It would ultimately be resumed across the veil of time and distance but it didn’t bode well for the first historic transfer of political power and presidential authority in America.
John Quincy Adams surrendered the government to Andrew Jackson in 1829, but the two men didn’t meet before Adams’ early departure on Jackson’s March 4th Inauguration Day.
I’ve found no record of what Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison had to say to one another on March 4th, 1841 or what Benjamin Harrison (the elder Harrison’s grandson) had to say in 1889 and 1893 to Grover Cleveland as they twice exchanged the presidency. However, the 1913 transfer of the presidency between William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson was a bit notable. Taft, who not only lost to Wilson, but also to Theodore Roosevelt, stayed on for Wilson’s inauguration and then accompanied the new president back to the White House. Not only did he stay for lunch, he lingered to talk with Wilson to the extent that both the new president’s staff and Taft’s people grew uncomfortable. Taft had a train to catch and Wilson had an administration to begin, but the outgoing president was clearly reluctant to leave.
Nineteen-thirty-three was a landmark year in American history. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected over incumbent Republican President Herbert Clark Hoover back on November 8th, 1932, had nearly four months before taking office. The Hoover administration sought to bring FDR into the decision-making process on several occasions. FDR, however, almost completely avoided the politically toxic Hoover. The payback appeared to come late on the afternoon of Friday, March 3rd when President-Elect Roosevelt paid a courtesy call on President Hoover. FDR’s son James wrote that their social call was scheduled for teatime (at four o’clock) and that they arrived at the White House going through the south portico door for FDR’s convenience. They then took the elevator up to the first floor. They had to wait for thirty minutes until President Hoover arrived with Ogden Mills, the Treasury Secretary. When FDR firmly but politely refused to conduct business, they downed their tea and prepared to leave. FDR told the president that in view of his physical condition and the time it would take for him to get to his feet and leave the room, he’d understand if the president didn’t wait for him. Hoover’s response was to tell FDR coldly that he’d understand after being president for a while that the President of the United States waits for no one. Some accounts of this meeting assert that FDR stubbornly refused to be seated while waiting for Hoover’s arrival and that Hoover, knowing he would assume that posture on painfully crippled legs, deliberately kept him waiting.
Although they weren’t opponents in 1952, when President Truman and President-Elect Eisenhower met after the election, their former personal ease evaporated—a casualty of the late political campaign. Their one White House meeting was exceedingly stiff. When President-Elect Eisenhower’s car pulled up to the White House on Inauguration Day 1953, Ike waited in the car for the President to emerge from the White House. When Truman did arrive, Ike, as they drove to the Capitol, demanded to know why his son John, then serving in Korea, had been called home for the inauguration. Was it done to embarrass the incoming president, Ike wondered. Truman’s response was:
“He came home because he was ordered to do so by the President of the United States so that he could see his father inaugurated as his Commander-in-Chief.”
Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford were opponents in 1976, but both men allowed politics to recede into the background during the transition. President Carter’s first words after taking the oath of office on January 20th, 1977 were: "For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter eventually became friends for life.
The relationship between Presidents Carter and Reagan was polite but formal. President Reagan followed President Carter’s example by thanking the outgoing Chief Executive for his public service. However, President Carter said later that their personal meeting was less productive than it could have been because President-Elect Reagan seemed uninterested in some documentation Carter wanted Mr. Reagan to see. Carter said Reagan just stared glassily off into the distance and said that his staff would bring him up to date on such information.
As for the transitions between Clinton and George H. W. Bush and between Clinton and George W. Bush, I have no information. However, President Bush apparently called President Clinton last Monday to remind him of and thank him once again for the very gracious way President Clinton had received him eight years ago.
As for last Monday, President Bush said nothing of what had been agreed to or what remained at issue between Barack Obama and himself on the subjects of the unstable economy here at home and the uncertainties abroad. However, President Bush seems to have been touched by President-Elect Obama’s insistence on visiting the rooms where his two little girls would be sleeping.
"Clearly, this guy is going to bring a great sense of family to the White House," Bush said. "I hope Laura and I did the same thing, but I believe he will and I know his girls are on his mind and he wants to make sure that first and foremost he is a good dad. And I think that's going to be an important part of his presidency."
That observation coming from a “family values” doctrine-oriented “conservative” has to be seen as something of a complement. In this era of doctrinaire politics and “the culture war”, any acknowledgment by one side of an opponent’s humanity is a most encouraging thing. For years I’ve asserted that the human dynamic among our leaders is not only important but that it is as essential to our ultimate success or failure as a society as any official strategy, document or policy.
In the final analysis, all that we read and observe about America’s past, present and future is personal because it personally matters to you and to me. Hence the experience of surrendering and receiving the awesome duties, power and responsibility of the presidency can hardly be any less personal—can it?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 10, 2008
CAN WE, THE WILLFUL MANY, BECOME ONE?
By Edwin Cooney
The polls in California had barely closed last Tuesday night when all of the networks and cable channels declared that Senator Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States of America.
These declarations were followed, almost immediately, by an exceedingly generous, classy, and patriotic concession speech by Arizona Senator John McCain. Next came the President-Elect who acknowledged Senator McCain’s service to his country and asserted the importance of respect for and consultation with representatives of differing political opinions.
Standing before tens of thousands of his supporters in Chicago’s Grant Park, America’s next President insisted, as he has throughout his campaign, that “yes, we can” surmount the difficulties Americans face at home and abroad in a changing nation and world. Even more, Barack Obama insisted that we have more in common than we have differences. “…Out of many, we are one,” he said.
“…If I have not earned your vote tonight,” said the President-Elect to millions of down-hearted political opponents, “I have heard your voice and I will be your President, too.”
Exactly twenty-eight years ago to the date and very day of the week, Tuesday, November 4th, 1980, another man received the overwhelming support of the American people at the polls. His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. His victory over President Jimmy Carter brought ideological conservatism into power. Mr. Reagan’s national and world views differed sharply from that of even recent Republican presidents Nixon and Ford. Supply-side economics replaced Keynesian economics. In foreign affairs, the Soviet Union became “the evil empire”. The “START treaty” which would allow us to install cruise missiles in Western Europe to counter Soviet SS-20 missiles aimed at Central Europe replaced the SALT 2 treaty. “Tax indexing” to adjust increases in earned income was adopted to reflect inflation. The line item veto became a popular proposal to limit government spending. It would remain so even after it was declared unconstitutional by a conservative Supreme Court.
By 1984, it was “Morning in America” and President Reagan lost only the state of Minnesota (the home state of former Vice President Walter Mondale, his opponent) in his bid for re-election. Reaganites, along with millions of other satisfied and gratified Americans, were united in the belief that President Reagan had brought the country out of the “malaise” of the Carter years. America was rich, prosperous, politically and morally principled, and in control of its prospects for peace and security. Thus, on the surface, we appeared to be one.
Or, were we? Did our general satisfaction with President Reagan and his political doctrine constitute a lasting unity—or should it have?
I say, of course not.
Twenty-eight years after our 1980 consensus, ideologists of both the left and right insist, even between political seasons, that they alone are the guardians of the pathway to morality. This insistence, Senator Obama pointed out in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” is what prohibits consensus between Republicans and Democrats in the media, in the highest councils of government, and even in our current culture.
Hence, even as President Obama seeks a way out of our current economic morass, his greatest task will be to teach both conservatives and liberals an essential lesson: acknowledgment of and cooperation with one another is the essence of good government.
Liberals, who consider themselves the most tolerant of people, destroy their reputation for tolerance by insisting that all conservative ideas are narrow, racist, selfish, exploitive, and jingoistic. Conservatives, who consider themselves to be the supreme lovers of freedom, could be even more powerful if they acknowledged that those who differ with them are no less patriotic, fiscally responsible, or spiritually principled than they are. The first principle of freedom is inclusiveness not exclusivity. Differences in strategy or tactics do not constitute a lack of patriotism or a threat to America’s safety.
History is replete with our differences as a people. During the War of 1812, powerful forces in conservative New England considered secession forty years before the South seceded. We differed over slavery and reconstruction. Vast economic differences in the late nineteenth century brought about rural granges and urban unions. We differed over women’s suffrage, the social adjustments during the depression, and isolationism vs. internationalism during and after World War II. Civil rights and civil liberties inevitably draw us up short and force us to consider uncomfortable questions. These differences have been largely overcome by individual as well as group familiarity and acknowledgment. Ultimately, we will always be united in support of the peace, prosperity and security of our nation.
President-Elect Obama is right to seek national consensus, but the right and power of a free people to offer or withdraw its consent is the gift of we, the willful ones.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
The polls in California had barely closed last Tuesday night when all of the networks and cable channels declared that Senator Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States of America.
These declarations were followed, almost immediately, by an exceedingly generous, classy, and patriotic concession speech by Arizona Senator John McCain. Next came the President-Elect who acknowledged Senator McCain’s service to his country and asserted the importance of respect for and consultation with representatives of differing political opinions.
Standing before tens of thousands of his supporters in Chicago’s Grant Park, America’s next President insisted, as he has throughout his campaign, that “yes, we can” surmount the difficulties Americans face at home and abroad in a changing nation and world. Even more, Barack Obama insisted that we have more in common than we have differences. “…Out of many, we are one,” he said.
“…If I have not earned your vote tonight,” said the President-Elect to millions of down-hearted political opponents, “I have heard your voice and I will be your President, too.”
Exactly twenty-eight years ago to the date and very day of the week, Tuesday, November 4th, 1980, another man received the overwhelming support of the American people at the polls. His name was Ronald Wilson Reagan. His victory over President Jimmy Carter brought ideological conservatism into power. Mr. Reagan’s national and world views differed sharply from that of even recent Republican presidents Nixon and Ford. Supply-side economics replaced Keynesian economics. In foreign affairs, the Soviet Union became “the evil empire”. The “START treaty” which would allow us to install cruise missiles in Western Europe to counter Soviet SS-20 missiles aimed at Central Europe replaced the SALT 2 treaty. “Tax indexing” to adjust increases in earned income was adopted to reflect inflation. The line item veto became a popular proposal to limit government spending. It would remain so even after it was declared unconstitutional by a conservative Supreme Court.
By 1984, it was “Morning in America” and President Reagan lost only the state of Minnesota (the home state of former Vice President Walter Mondale, his opponent) in his bid for re-election. Reaganites, along with millions of other satisfied and gratified Americans, were united in the belief that President Reagan had brought the country out of the “malaise” of the Carter years. America was rich, prosperous, politically and morally principled, and in control of its prospects for peace and security. Thus, on the surface, we appeared to be one.
Or, were we? Did our general satisfaction with President Reagan and his political doctrine constitute a lasting unity—or should it have?
I say, of course not.
Twenty-eight years after our 1980 consensus, ideologists of both the left and right insist, even between political seasons, that they alone are the guardians of the pathway to morality. This insistence, Senator Obama pointed out in his book “The Audacity of Hope,” is what prohibits consensus between Republicans and Democrats in the media, in the highest councils of government, and even in our current culture.
Hence, even as President Obama seeks a way out of our current economic morass, his greatest task will be to teach both conservatives and liberals an essential lesson: acknowledgment of and cooperation with one another is the essence of good government.
Liberals, who consider themselves the most tolerant of people, destroy their reputation for tolerance by insisting that all conservative ideas are narrow, racist, selfish, exploitive, and jingoistic. Conservatives, who consider themselves to be the supreme lovers of freedom, could be even more powerful if they acknowledged that those who differ with them are no less patriotic, fiscally responsible, or spiritually principled than they are. The first principle of freedom is inclusiveness not exclusivity. Differences in strategy or tactics do not constitute a lack of patriotism or a threat to America’s safety.
History is replete with our differences as a people. During the War of 1812, powerful forces in conservative New England considered secession forty years before the South seceded. We differed over slavery and reconstruction. Vast economic differences in the late nineteenth century brought about rural granges and urban unions. We differed over women’s suffrage, the social adjustments during the depression, and isolationism vs. internationalism during and after World War II. Civil rights and civil liberties inevitably draw us up short and force us to consider uncomfortable questions. These differences have been largely overcome by individual as well as group familiarity and acknowledgment. Ultimately, we will always be united in support of the peace, prosperity and security of our nation.
President-Elect Obama is right to seek national consensus, but the right and power of a free people to offer or withdraw its consent is the gift of we, the willful ones.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, November 3, 2008
THE QUIET HOURS
By Edwin Cooney
Late tonight will come those quiet hours between midnight and dawn. The campaign speeches, personal attack ads, and political rallies will cease. Barack Obama and John McCain will return to their homes to listen to what you and I have to say on the morrow.
The rude, noisy, and sometimes intrusive political campaign season will be over. Both hopeful and discouraged campaign workers and political candidates will slip into bed and, for the first time since early 2007, there will be political quiet—-if not political peace--in the land.
Two northern New Hampshire villages, Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location will cast their votes at midnight, thus becoming the first two precincts in the nation to report their total vote. It might be well for Senator Obama if he loses Dixville Notch. The only Democratic candidate to win in that tiny GOP village just twenty miles south of the Canadian border was Hubert Humphrey. HHH carried Dixville Notch in 1968 by a vote of eight to four over Richard Nixon, but RMN carried the nation.
More conclusive results will begin to come in late Tuesday afternoon. Usually the states of New Hampshire, Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana report first followed by Connecticut and Delaware. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, Kentucky and Indiana, the election may well be a tight one. High voter turnout could indicate an Obama victory. Should Senator Obama win New Hampshire and Indiana, the chances are good that there’ll be a Democratic sweep.
However, the question for millions of conscientious Americans will be: Does it all really matter?
History tells us that indeed it does matter how you vote. Beneath all of the political charges and counter-charges, there is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
The Republicans sincerely believe deep in their souls that the government has absolutely no right to be a factor in determining the outcome of domestic and social affairs. Freedom, they insist, can only flourish when it’s fueled by unfettered capital—today we know it as “trickle down economics” or “Reaganomics.” They believe that the only legitimate objective of government is our national defense against foreign attack. Education, health care, joblessness and even private greed are correctable by what they call: “The free marketplace.”
They insist that local government and even state governments may legitimately regulate human behavior, but federal Government that involves itself in social matters is “socialistic”. They genuinely believe that a truly free society will prosper by the example of the successful. Success, they believe, is the reward of hard work. Hard work, they assert, is the only legitimate path to success.
Democrats on the other hand, believe that government has a legitimate responsibility to affect the lives of the people. Democrats see the prosperity of the “middle class” as its agenda. Prosperity, they assert, comes from the bottom up rather than from the top down. If people don’t have the money to purchase the goods and services of private enterprise, business can’t prosper.
In the area of foreign affairs, Republicans see the world as ungrateful for past American protection against Nazism and Communism. Hence, our old allies selfishly are unwilling to face the realities of international terrorism. Furthermore, they see a changing world as requiring America to be strong militarily and dogmatic in its diplomacy.
Democrats see the changing world as ultimately pliable and responsive to intelligent and far-sighted American diplomacy. After all, they point out; we live in a world of diverse cultures and experiences. One of the major causes of war stems from a lack of knowledge of conditions and situations in sensitive parts of the world on the part of our leaders. If we were diplomatically proactive rather than reactive, the chances are we could negotiate our way out of most crises.
Exactly twenty-eight years ago, during those quiet hours of election eve, the American people decided that Ronald Reagan’s conservatism could best lead us out of the uncertainties of inflation and high interest rates at home and the threat of Communism and radicalism—in the form of hostage taking in Iran—abroad. They knew that President Jimmy Carter had worked diligently for domestic prosperity and international security, but they weren’t seeing the results of his efforts.
Just over the horizon, Americans saw a handsome, magnetic and silver-tongued hero riding to their rescue and they beckoned him forward with their votes.
Exactly what Americans see in their dreams over the horizon, as they slumber this night, is tomorrow’s story.
In the dreams tonight of two worthy men, Barack Obama and John McCain, shimmer the pillars of the White House. For which man this dream will come true will depend largely on how closely his dreams match yours and mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Late tonight will come those quiet hours between midnight and dawn. The campaign speeches, personal attack ads, and political rallies will cease. Barack Obama and John McCain will return to their homes to listen to what you and I have to say on the morrow.
The rude, noisy, and sometimes intrusive political campaign season will be over. Both hopeful and discouraged campaign workers and political candidates will slip into bed and, for the first time since early 2007, there will be political quiet—-if not political peace--in the land.
Two northern New Hampshire villages, Dixville Notch and Hart’s Location will cast their votes at midnight, thus becoming the first two precincts in the nation to report their total vote. It might be well for Senator Obama if he loses Dixville Notch. The only Democratic candidate to win in that tiny GOP village just twenty miles south of the Canadian border was Hubert Humphrey. HHH carried Dixville Notch in 1968 by a vote of eight to four over Richard Nixon, but RMN carried the nation.
More conclusive results will begin to come in late Tuesday afternoon. Usually the states of New Hampshire, Virginia, Kentucky and Indiana report first followed by Connecticut and Delaware. Should Senator McCain win New Hampshire, Kentucky and Indiana, the election may well be a tight one. High voter turnout could indicate an Obama victory. Should Senator Obama win New Hampshire and Indiana, the chances are good that there’ll be a Democratic sweep.
However, the question for millions of conscientious Americans will be: Does it all really matter?
History tells us that indeed it does matter how you vote. Beneath all of the political charges and counter-charges, there is a fundamental difference between the two parties.
The Republicans sincerely believe deep in their souls that the government has absolutely no right to be a factor in determining the outcome of domestic and social affairs. Freedom, they insist, can only flourish when it’s fueled by unfettered capital—today we know it as “trickle down economics” or “Reaganomics.” They believe that the only legitimate objective of government is our national defense against foreign attack. Education, health care, joblessness and even private greed are correctable by what they call: “The free marketplace.”
They insist that local government and even state governments may legitimately regulate human behavior, but federal Government that involves itself in social matters is “socialistic”. They genuinely believe that a truly free society will prosper by the example of the successful. Success, they believe, is the reward of hard work. Hard work, they assert, is the only legitimate path to success.
Democrats on the other hand, believe that government has a legitimate responsibility to affect the lives of the people. Democrats see the prosperity of the “middle class” as its agenda. Prosperity, they assert, comes from the bottom up rather than from the top down. If people don’t have the money to purchase the goods and services of private enterprise, business can’t prosper.
In the area of foreign affairs, Republicans see the world as ungrateful for past American protection against Nazism and Communism. Hence, our old allies selfishly are unwilling to face the realities of international terrorism. Furthermore, they see a changing world as requiring America to be strong militarily and dogmatic in its diplomacy.
Democrats see the changing world as ultimately pliable and responsive to intelligent and far-sighted American diplomacy. After all, they point out; we live in a world of diverse cultures and experiences. One of the major causes of war stems from a lack of knowledge of conditions and situations in sensitive parts of the world on the part of our leaders. If we were diplomatically proactive rather than reactive, the chances are we could negotiate our way out of most crises.
Exactly twenty-eight years ago, during those quiet hours of election eve, the American people decided that Ronald Reagan’s conservatism could best lead us out of the uncertainties of inflation and high interest rates at home and the threat of Communism and radicalism—in the form of hostage taking in Iran—abroad. They knew that President Jimmy Carter had worked diligently for domestic prosperity and international security, but they weren’t seeing the results of his efforts.
Just over the horizon, Americans saw a handsome, magnetic and silver-tongued hero riding to their rescue and they beckoned him forward with their votes.
Exactly what Americans see in their dreams over the horizon, as they slumber this night, is tomorrow’s story.
In the dreams tonight of two worthy men, Barack Obama and John McCain, shimmer the pillars of the White House. For which man this dream will come true will depend largely on how closely his dreams match yours and mine!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
THE ROARING TEDDY BEAR
By Edwin Cooney
(For MONDAY, OCTOBER 27TH, 2008)
The clock read 7:45 p.m. on the night of Wednesday, October 27th, 1858. The scene was a brownstone located at 28 East 20th Avenue in New York City. The occasion was the birth of a very special baby. He would be named after his father Theodore Roosevelt and, for the next sixty years and seventy-one days, life in the Roosevelt family would be nearly always exciting and seldom predictable.
Theodore Roosevelt was the second child and oldest son of Theodore and Martha Bulloch Roosevelt. His older sister Anna was called either Bamie or Bysie. Young Theodore wasn’t called Teddy, a name he never liked; rather, he was called Teedie until he was in his mid teens. His younger brother Elliott, whose daughter Eleanor would marry her fifth cousin Franklin D. Roosevelt, was known as Ellie and their youngest sister Corinne was called Conie (spelled with one “n”). Teedie, Ellie, and Conie, who were closer in age to each other than they were to their older sister Anna, referred to themselves as “we three.”
Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. was a prosperous glass import merchant and banker in mid- nineteenth century New York City. Teedie’s mother Martha Bulloch Roosevelt was a Southern Belle, which brought about some discomfort during the Civil War when Teedie’s father was away giving aid and comfort to Union troops. Martha’s two brothers were fighting with the Confederacy while her young son Teedie prayed aloud every night that God would grind Confederate troops into the dust.
Theodore Roosevelt, Sr. was a kind and generous man to all who knew him. His charities included the YMCA, the News-Boy’s Lodging House, and the New York Orthopedic Hospital. The Roosevelt family lineage was Dutch, Scotch, English, Huguenot and Welch.
Teedie suffered throughout his childhood from severe attacks of asthma. He was physically weak and underweight. These maladies would be mastered as he began a physical training program in the family gymnasium and grew into adolescence.
Teedie’s childhood experiences included two trips abroad, one in 1869 through the spring of 1870 and the second lasting from 1872 through much of 1873.
During his first trip abroad he spent the Christmas season in Rome where he had occasion to meet and kiss the hand of Pope Leo IX. Once, being an energetic and occasionally mischievous child insensitive to the plight of the poor, he led “we three” in tossing cake into the midst of a crowd of beggars to watch them scramble for the crumbs. “We three,” also entertained themselves another time by shooting cap guns in a public square, thus scaring the dogs.
During the 1872-73 visit abroad, Teedie and his father climbed to the top of the Egyptian pyramids. He also spent time in Dresden Germany at a private school while his parents conducted other affairs.
From the time he was seven, Teedie was interested in natural history. At around age nine, he wrote a rather learned paper on the natural history of insects. He also learned to do taxidermy. This enabled him to preserve the carcasses of birds and the small game that he shot. Over time, the idea of shooting animals presented somewhat of a conflict to Teedie, but hunting would always be one of his favorite sports.
Due to his various illnesses, most of young Teedie’s education was at home where he learned the fundamentals from his Aunt Annie, his mother’s sister. During his mid teens he did attend a private school during his preparation for his 1876 admission to Harvard.
While at Harvard between September 1876 and June of 1880, in addition to his studies, he was librarian of the Porcellian club, secretary of the Hasty Pudding club, vice president of the Natural History club, and he founded the Finance Club. Additionally, he was runner-up for the Harvard light heavy-weight boxing championship. He also scored where it counted, graduating Phi Bata Kappa as well as magna cum laude and ranking twenty-first in a class of one-hundred and seventy-seven.
In 1878, TR suffered the tragedy of the death of his father. He also discovered the joy of romance when he met and fell in love with Alice Hathaway Lee whom he would marry on his twenty-second birthday in 1880.
Surrendering to Alice’s plea that he give up his plans to become a naturalist, TR entered Columbia University Law School in the fall of 1880. Law, he decided, would lead him into public life. However, following his marriage and extensive European honeymoon, he decided to skip the law degree and plunge into politics. Thus, in the fall of 1881, he was elected to the State Legislature representing New York State’s twenty-third Assembly District.
His three years in the New York State Assembly saw him fight corruption and cross the political aisle in support of Democratic Governor Grover Cleveland’s civil service reform proposal. However, it would be interrupted by a St. Valentine’s Day tragedy.
On that day, under the same roof, TR would lose his mother to typhus and his beloved Alice to Bright’s disease. Alice had given birth two days previously to a baby girl. She would be named after her mother and become throughout her life one of America’s most fascinating political and social personalities. Devastated by the double tragedy, TR, after completing his duties in the Assembly and participating as a delegate at the 1884 GOP convention, headed to the badlands of the Dakota Territory.
For two years, TR would live the harsh life of a cattle rancher and serve as a deputy sheriff of Billings County.
In 1886, he returned to New York and lost his bid to become Mayor. Then he went on to London, England where he won a new bride. Her name was Edith Carow. Edith had loved Theodore since they played together as children. She even attended his 1880 wedding to Alice Lee and wished him well. Now they became one and raised a family of four sons and a daughter in addition to young Alice.
To write of Theodore Roosevelt is to write of an historian (his first book published in 1882 was a naval history of the war of 1812), a naturalist, a rancher or “cowboy,” a soldier, and, ultimately, a politician and United States president. Between 1890 and 1901, he served as a federal civil service commissioner, President of the New York City Police Commission, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Governor of New York and, from March 4th to September 14th of 1901, Vice President of the United States.
Theodore Roosevelt was an extraordinary person and politician. By no means was he always either politically selfless or in tune with the voters. However, there was a definite and genuine righteousness about him.
It was apparent to some as early as 1895, when he was President of the police Board of Commissioners, that Theodore Roosevelt was headed for the presidency. Author Lincoln Steffens and a friend were in TR’s office at police headquarters one day and wondered aloud if perhaps TR might sometime become a presidential candidate. Suddenly, TR leaped to his feet with rage on his face:
“Don’t you dare ask me that!” he almost screamed. “Don’t you put such ideas into my head! No friend of mine would say a thing like that. Never, never, must either of you remind a man on a political job that he may be president. It almost always kills him politically. He loses his nerve, he can’t do his work, and he gives up the very traits that are making him a possibility.”
When the Spanish American War broke out in 1898, TR left his post as Assistant Secretary of the Navy to raise a private regiment, popularly known as “The Rough Riders,” to fight in Cuba. On July 1st of 1898, he led a charge up Kettle Hill (popularly understood to be San Juan Hill) to overrun an enemy gun emplacement. Thus, thirty-nine year-old Theodore Roosevelt became, in the public’s mind, as much a war hero as Andrew Jackson and Ulysses S. Grant were. Narrowly elected Governor of New York that November 8th, TR would be president within three years.
A “reform governor,” TR defied the wishes of traditional Republican leaders and passed labor legislation limiting the hours children and women could be compelled to work. He also strengthened civil service laws to take jobs away from political patronage-hungry politicians and put them into the public sector. Thus, New York Republican leaders pressed President William McKinley to take TR as his running mate in 1900. The President agreed and the GOP ticket of McKinley and Roosevelt was elected that fall on the promise of “a full dinner pail.”
Six months and two days after Inauguration Day, President McKinley was shot by anarchist Leon Czolgosz while attending the Pan American Exposition in Buffalo, New York.
Sunday September 22nd, TR’s first full day in the White House was the President’s late father’s birthday. Making note of that, the new President told his family that his presidency would reflect his father’s sense of public spirit.
Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency would be dedicated to the strengthening and expansion of American military power and influence abroad. To that end, TR would purchase America’s right to build the Panama Canal. He issued a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine justifying American intervention in the affairs of Latin America, brokered a peace treaty between Japan and Russia in 1905 (for which he would be awarded the 1906 Nobel Peace Prize) and sent the “Great White Fleet”—in defiance of Congress—on a round-the-world “good will tour” in 1907.
At home, President Roosevelt dedicated the presidency to the welfare of the people. During the 1902 anthracite coal strike, he urged management (with limited success) to recognize the legitimacy of labor unions and labor’s issues. He ordered his attorney general to bring suits against the big railroads and the beef and tobacco combinations. He also purchased millions of acres of land for the purpose of land and resource conservation projects. In 1903, he signed legislation creating the Department of Commerce and Labor. In 1906, he signed the Pure Food and Drug act and the Hepburn act which strengthened the Commerce Department’s ability to regulate railroad rates for goods and for passengers crossing state lines.
Popular from the outset of his presidency, he defeated his Democratic opponent, New York State Supreme Court Judge Alton B. Parker, by over two million votes in 1904 when he sought a full term.
When he left the presidency in 1909 to his friend William Howard Taft, he was as popular as ever. Unlike his predecessors, Theodore Roosevelt sought to react to people’s needs rather than simply reacting to Congress’s measures. A proactive rather than a reactive presidency was his ultimate gift to the American people.
Even more, the person of Theodore Roosevelt made an impression on the people. His large boisterous family made news. His boys Theodore, Kermit, Archie and Quentin and his two daughters Ethel and Alice were frequently in the news. The boys slid down the banisters and occasionally even roller skated through the formal rooms of the mansion. One day, when Quentin was ill, his sisters and brothers brought his pet pony up to see him in his third floor room via the White House elevator.
His daughter Alice became known as “Princess Alice” in the newspapers. As willful as her father, she responded to his directive that she couldn’t smoke under his roof by responding:
“Alright father, I’ll smoke on top of your roof,” and she did: she smoked on the roof of the White House.
“Princess Alice” married Ohio GOP congressman Nicholas Longworth at the White House on February 17, 1906.
It was the President, however, who made the biggest news. In his first months as President, he angered southern congressmen by inviting black educator Booker T. Washington to the White House. True, he never repeated the gesture, but he never apologized for it either.
Additionally, there was boxing and wrestling at the White House in which the chief executive took part. There were also the obstacle hikes led by TR which took the President, newspaper reporters and even White House guests through parks, forests, swamps and even across streams—with and without clothes.
No President enjoyed his job more than Theodore Roosevelt. That could be part of the reason why he quarreled with his two successors, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. His quarrel with Taft would ultimately be healed in a dramatic reunion in 1918 at a Chicago restaurant. However, he and Woodrow Wilson came to heartily dislike one another—a breech that would never be healed.
Some may well argue that TR’s ultimate legacy crossed political, historic, and social barriers that Washington, Jackson, or even Abraham Lincoln never came close to crossing.
While visiting Mississippi in November 1902, where he’d been invited to settle a land dispute between Mississippi and Louisiana, his hosts invited him on a hunting trip. Newspaper cartoonist Clifford Berryman drew a cartoon depicting a bear cub that the President supposedly refused to shoot. Sometime later, Morris and Rose Michtom, a couple who owned a candy and novelty store in Brooklyn, New York, wrote and asked the President if they could sell a stuffed bear designed by Mrs. Michtom. They sent the president a sample of the bear which they asked permission to call a “Teddy bear.” Permission was granted. Within a year’s time, Morris and Rose Mitchtom ran a toy company rather than merely a candy store.
TR’s lifetime was just sixty years and seventy-one days, but what years and days they turned out to be! Like his fellow citizens, Theodore Roosevelt had his assets and liabilities, his gifts and his blind spots, his triumphs and tragedies. He could be scrupulously truthful and willfully devious. Although he almost never engaged in self- pity, he could be self-righteously cruel to those who got in his way.
Theodore Roosevelt loved and lived life to the absolute fullest. Mostly devoid of subtlety, he often laughed as freely as a happy child, but he could also roar like a bear---a Teddy bear that is!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 20, 2008
DECISIONS, DECISIONS, DECISIONS!!!
By Edwin Cooney
I suppose I shouldn’t have (my mother told me to stay out of those places), but I recently returned to my favorite watering hole once again. I had to: it’s nearly Election Day and I just had to get a reading on the campaign from my buddies, Lunkhead and Dunderhead.
I could tell times were tense as soon as I arrived. Instead of sitting inside where Lunkhead usually is content to sit holding a dead cigar in his teeth, he was outside with Dunderhead. Lunkhead’s cigar was lit and his scotch was being held in a tight right fist.
Dunderhead was sitting across the table from Lunkhead staring down at some papers, a nearly full beer in front of him.
“What’s up fellows?” I asked. “Lunkhead, you’re looking a bit glum!” I continued, sitting down and hoping the waitress would soon bring my beer.
“His lady is voting for Obama,” Dunderhead said, biting his lips to keep from grinning.
“What!” I began “you mean Bertha’s actually go…..”
“Don’t say it,” Lunkhead cut in, “Maybe Sarah Palin can still bring her back to sanity.”
“That’s what I’m here to find out guys,” I said, after accepting a tall one, “who’s winning this election?”
The names came fast, Lunkhead shouting McCain and Dunderhead Obama. It was exactly what I’d expected.
Turning to my left, I asked Lunkhead, “What will elect McCain?”
“People want to be safe and secure. McCain’s military background, his experience as a POW and a public servant, plus his world outlook which I think is devoid of naiveté, provides the steadiness people are looking to find in difficult times. Furthermore, people are tired of the Democrats’ continuous appeals to class warfare. If it wasn’t for the well-off in this country, we’d live in a third world society,” Lunkhead replied.
“Nuts!” shot back Dunderhead, “in the first place, there are plenty of rich people in third world countries. Second, when a president proposes tax cuts for those making over a certain dollar amount, isn’t that class warfare? Third, when are the McCains and Lunkheads of this world going to get it through their heads that you can’t have a prosperous society without consumers? A nation of poor people will never be able to purchase the products and services the wealthy produce unless investments are made to their health, education and employment. I assert that the disappearance of the middle class is what could turn us into a third world country more than anything bad that’s likely to happen to the rich.”
“What will elect Obama?” I asked Dunderhead, turning to my right.
“George W. Bush, that’s all the answer you really need,” Dunderhead replied. “Americans have had it with presidential collusion with the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class. They’re tired of seeing their constitutional rights sacrificed because of conservative fears over Radical Islam. Finally, they’ve had it with right wing sensational politics as promoted by influential right wing talk show hosts,” Dunderhead exclaimed, smirking at Lunkhead.
“Nonsense,” rumbled Lunkhead, “President Bush isn’t doing anything Abraham Lincoln didn’t do during the Civil War in-so-far as detaining people is concerned. The American people aren’t stupid. They understand that very well. As for right wing talk show hosts, Americans have had a bellyful of the hysterical propaganda pushed by Air America and MoveOn.org.”
”So, “ I asked “what would each of you say is your opponent’s biggest asset and what is your own candidate’s biggest mistake so far in this campaign?”
“Obama was smart to pick Biden,” Lunkhead said. “He has experience, he can be entertaining on the campaign trail with all of his Irish blarney, and I have to say he treated Governor Palin a lot better during the debate than the liberal media does on a daily basis. As for McCain’s biggest mistake, I’d say it was voting for the Wall Street bailout. What made it even worse was when he appeared to want to cancel the first debate to return to Washington for the purpose of consulting with the Bush Administration on the bailout. To many, he appeared to be in bed with an unpopular president rather than taking charge of the issue. He’d have been much better off had he voted against the bailout and then perhaps approved the modified version. That’s what could lose him the election,” Lunkhead sighed.
“As for what John McCain has done right,” Dunderhead began, “you have to go back to August. McCain had a great August. He kind of pushed Obama into a corner after Russia invaded Georgia. He began his campaign well when he participated in Rick Perry’s Saddleback Ranch debate. Then he ended August by picking Sarah Palin on his seventy-second birthday which was the day after Obama’s much publicized acceptance speech in Denver. That was smart. As for my concerns about the Obama campaign, I’d like to have seen Obama be more aggressive in the debates. He was often too professorial and aloof to suit me,” Dunderhead said, picking up his beer.
“Okay,” I said, “I’ve got to ask: what about the Palin choice? Was it smart? Was it a good choice?”
“It was good for America,” Lunkhead insisted, as he took a long puff on his cigar, “she’s right about abortion, she’s right on the subject of education, and she’s right in her opposition to gay marriage. She’s even willing to stand up to oil companies when it comes to sharing their wealth with the Alaska taxpayer. Her only fault is her comparative lack of experience which, as I see it, is more than balanced by Barack Obama’s lack of experience. If things go as I want them to, we’ll elect an experienced president. If Obama is elected we’ll have an inexperienced president. It’s as simple as that.”
“I admit,” said Dunderhead, “I thought it was a smart decision back on August 29th, when McCain introduced her. I thought she might actually appeal to many of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. However, as time has passed, Sarah Palin’s lack of knowledge has been emphasized by her lack of experience. She didn’t even know what the “Bush Doctrine” was when Charlie Gibson asked her about it. It’s also clear that the McCain camp doesn’t trust her enough to let her campaign very much by herself. What interests me is what kind of a mark she’s going to make on the Republican party. If she runs in the future, I wonder how her fellow Republican presidential candidates in 2011 and 2012 will treat her? She may well have tightened up the base of the Republican party for the fall campaign, but I think it’s unlikely that Republicans will give her a free pass to the top four years from now.”
“By the way, Lunkhead,” asked Dunderhead, “you didn’t go so far as to bet Bertha on the outcome of this election did you?”
“You know how I am about Bertha. I couldn’t help myself, Dunderhead!” Lunkhead gasped, his face paling.
“What must you do if Obama wins the election?” Dunderhead asked, his face deadpan.
“My daughter’s Halloween donkey ears -- I’ve gotta wear them every time I come here between the election and the inauguration,” he practically whispered.
“Goodness,” mused Dunderhead, “it’s going to be a dry Fall, isn’t it!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Monday, October 13, 2008
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS—VICTIMS OF WAR
By Edwin Cooney
A friend recently sent me an internet article about a Little Rock, Arkansas social studies teacher named Martha Cothren. In September 2005, with permission from the Little Rock Superintendent of Schools, her school principal at Robinson High School and the cooperation of the building supervisor, Ms. Cothren removed all twenty-seven desks from her classroom for the first day of school.
When students arrived for class and discovered that there were no desks in Ms. Cothren’s classroom, they naturally wondered why. Her response was to ask the question: what have you done to earn the right to a desk? Only if they could give a satisfactory answer to that question, she told them, would she have desks installed in the classroom.
This apparently went on all day. Rather than answering her question, students seemed convinced that their behavior, was the real object of Ms. Cothren’s motive for beginning the school year without desks in her classroom.
Students guessed that perhaps they hadn’t behaved well enough. That wasn’t it, she assured them. Perhaps their grades weren’t sufficient, they guessed. No, that wasn’t it, either.
Finally, during the last period of the day, Ms. Cothren gave in. She would demonstrate to the students why they hadn’t earned the right to sit at their desks.
Opening the door—with local news cameras on hand—Ms. Cothren beckoned in twenty-seven soldiers with the required twenty-seven desks. Each soldier marched in, placed a desk in the proper spot, and marched to the wall where he or she stood at attention.
Once this risky mission was completed (after all, everyone knows how dangerous it is to enter a classroom in an American public school these days!), Ms. Cothren explained to the students the purpose of her lesson that day.
These veterans are the ones who have earned the right to occupy these desks, she told the students. They have sacrificed so that you have the freedom to be here. She urged them to let that knowledge be the force to compel them to listen, learn, and be good students and citizens. Thus, end of lesson.
As is routine with this and many other “internet lessons,” the recipient is urged to send this message around to educate others. The idea is that others will understand that those who have served in the military -- or perhaps more to the point, those who have served our nation during a time of war -- earned their liberties for them.
Because I resist the tendency to use the plight of our veterans to justify and even glorify war, something too many of our national leaders (both past and present) have done, my first reaction to this message was disgust. Even if I was prone to automatically distribute many of the messages of humor and inspiration the internet offers, this one I would withhold.
Aside from my own personal prejudices, it seems to me that Ms. Cothren has confused right with obligation. As far back as I can remember (and the time period I can recall is much too long for the preservation of either youth or beauty), most students were and are obligated to go to school. They don’t instinctively elect to go. Even those who excitedly attend their first day of kindergarten, respond to a parental or societal obligation.
Of course, regardless of my own discomfort, war veterans are legitimate heroes. With the exception of the terminally ill, few know what the battlefield soldier experiences when faced with the minute by minute, hour by hour, and day by day intimacy of the presence of pain and perhaps death.
However, it must be remembered that even in these days of volunteer military service, most men and women in uniform join the service for the same reason that surely most of Ms. Cothren’s students originally entered school -- out of obligation.
It’s obvious that Ms. Cothren’s ultimate objective, since she and the local school system agreed to media coverage, was to demonstrate to the public that our rights and freedoms have been effectively protected by brave men and women who often do sacrifice their safety and even their lives in freedom’s name. Sadly, there is little doubt that her students aren’t likely to forget that she saw their obligation to get an education as a “right”.
In my view, therein lies the fault in Ms. Cothren’s lesson plan. Even in totalitarian societies such as Red China, Cuba, and, surely in those areas where the Taliban reigns, children must attend school. Nor are soldiers the sole purchasers of our children’s opportunity for an education. My social studies teachers taught me that taxi drivers, truck drivers, and even parents earn the money that paid my way at school.
It has become popular in recent years to chide minorities and welfare recipients for not understanding the difference between individual rights and obligations. From what I’ve seen of Martha Cothren’s lesson plan, she has demonstrated that perhaps even social studies teachers may suffer from the same malady.
Sadder still is the possibility that the value and meaning of these two words—right and obligation—have become casualties of our adventure in Iraq.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)