How Should We Use History?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns history and the correct use of it. History is to be learned from, not relived. Individuals are using lots of analogies to World War II recently, and they are sounding more ridiculous as time passes.

According to Jarrett Stepman at The Daily Signal, western media and political elites try to use history – particularly World War II – to analysis current events. 

Every single political event and leader is, like a broken record, compared to some bad Marvel comic version of its World War II self. Trump is Hitler. Trump is Neville Chamberlain. Russian President Vladimir Putin is Hitler. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Winston Churchill. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is Winston Churchill and the leader of the free world.

Stop!

For a time when millennials were coming of political age, the Harry Potter comparisons were repeated ad nauseum. The eventual response to Harry Potter analogies eventually just became, “read another book” and eventually the comparisons died down.

And that’s what I’m saying now. Pick another event in history besides World War II, please.

It isn’t always Munich in 1938. Not every politician you don’t like is Hitler. Not every aggressive foreign power is the Third Reich. And not every attempt at peace is Neville Chamberlain-like “appeasement.”

And if you are going to go with a World War II history analogy, at least get the facts straight.

I’d like to make this point about Churchill based on actual history because there has been quite a bit of digital ink spilled in claiming that Zelenskyy is like Churchill and that criticizing him is like the U.S. suddenly stabbing Churchill in the back while he was fighting Nazis.

Frankly, Zelenskyy’s public eruption with Trump was very un-Churchill-like. Churchill was a wise and clever statesman who knew exactly the position that the U.K. was in during the war. He knew that, as he said t the Tehran Conference in 1943 with FDR and Josef Stalin, between the American buffalo on one side and the Russian bear on the other, England was no more than a sad little donkey.

So he flattered and gently cajoled FDR and Stalin both publicly and privately….

I keep seeing this sentiment on social media that the United States should give Ukraine whatever it wants and take nothing in return as reward for their heroism against the Russians. Somehow this is supposed to be comparable to our relationship with Churchill in World War II, which was one of perpetual self-sacrifice.

Wrong.

Certainly, we often fought and died together. But the United States didn’t help the U.K. simply out of charity and kindness. It was a natural alliance of need and common interest, but we also took the Brits for all they had.

The loans the U.S. extended to them – the war material we gave them – came at a great cost. The U.K. only finally paid back the loans from the U.S. in 2006, and it had to do so with interest.

Rightly or wrongly, American leaders were ruthless with an ally of far more consequence and power than modern Ukraine….

We didn’t go running to fight World War II, we were pushed into a deeply unpopular war by world events….

So please give the shallow history lesson a rest for a bit and let the president meet with Putin jaw-to-jaw before we rush to war.

 

What Does History Teach about Preserving the Constitution?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the Constitution of the United States. September 17, 2023, is the 236^th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Grant Madsen, an assistant professor in the History department at Brigham Young University, wrote about the Constitution in a recent opinion piece in The Deseret News.

Madsen explained that he teaches his students that “the Constitution provides the rules of republican government while protecting fundamental rights. But we also remind our students that it makes an implicit demand of its citizens. As John Adams explained, ‘Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.’”

According to Madsen, one of the problems in understanding the statement of Adams is that “words tend to shift meaning over the centuries (what linguists call ‘semantic drift’).” The word moral is one of the words for which the meaning has shifted. Madsen explained that “one particularly important element of the word has been lost to history: Adams would have emphasized ‘disinterestedness’ as the critical virtue informing the morality of a successfully self-governing people.” Madsen continued with his explanation: 

In our contemporary usage, we equate “disinterest” with boredom. If used at all, people say it to signal they could not care less. By contrast, if the founders called a man “disinterested,” they paid him the highest compliment. It meant fair-minded and wise.

Samuel Johnson’s famous dictionary of 1755 defined disinterestedness as “superiority to regards of private advantage.” A disinterested citizen could not be bought nor persuaded by personal advantage; instead, he remained committed to the good of the republic and the interests of all. When Pennsylvanians wished to commemorate George Washington for his service in winning the Revolutionary War, they noted in particular his “disinterestedness and generosity of … soul.”

If disinterestedness stood as the chief virtue for the young republic, “faction” (what today we call “partisanship”) stood as its opposite. The founders understood that the spirit of faction had doomed all prior republican experiments to failure. Faction created “unsteadiness and injustice,” James Madison argued in what we now call “The Federalist Papers,” because factions coalesce precisely to subdue and exploit some number of their fellow citizens. They place exactly their “private advantage” ahead of the public good – usually by articulating their own desires as if it were the “the public good.” Rather than seek compromise or, better yet, search for an innovative and inclusive solution to a pressing public issue, most factions seek only victory.

A moral leader, as Adams understood it, refused to abide such a narrow attitude. Indeed, Adams often frustrated his fellow Federalists by refusing to favor a party system precisely because of its tendency to bring faction in its wake. Washington famously decried the party system in his farewell address. Madison, a brilliant political theorist, realized that the dangers of curing faction could prove worse than faction itself, and so he wrote much of our Constitution as an effort to at least alleviate its worst effects. But devising a system that tolerates faction is not the same as celebrating it, and none of the founders thought that a republic dominated by factionalism would prove the model of self-government they hoped this nation might become….

As we celebrate the Constitution’s birthday in 2023 and, by extension, admire those figures who devised it, we might ask who among us has not only embraced the freedoms it provides but also the spirit of the founders who created it. Which of us will achieve enough disinterest to rise above faction and, ideally, transcend the limits of our time? If history is any guide, this kind of moral commitment will do best by the nation and its founding document, the Constitution.

I learned much from Madsen’s article, particularly the meaning of the word moral. I can clearly see that factions are destructive to a constitutional way of life. America is deeply divided by two factions of our day – known as Democrat Party and Republican Party. Too many members of both parties make decisions on what is good for the party, not what is good for America.

I suspect that many Americans vote for a party rather than for what is good for America. Our nation will be better off when policy makers and individual citizens become more “disinterested” and make decisions that will create a greater and more united America.

 

History Lesson

                The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was written to protect American citizens from tyranny.  The Framers of our Constitution understood the importance of citizens having the right to keep and bear arms.  During the Revolutionary War American rebels had similar fire power to that used by the British soldiers.  It only makes sense for modern citizens to have the same firing power that the government might use against them. 

The American Revolution would not have taken place if guns were controlled.  Britain’s soldiers confiscated all firearms possible in order to control the American rebels.  The Battles of Lexington and Concord took place because the Americans were unwilling to let the British soldiers take their stores of gun powder, etc.  Americans won those battles because they used guerilla tactics:  they made quick strikes and then faded into the trees only to come out again in another place to do more damage.

Some people consider it silly for American gun owners to think they can wage war against the most powerful nation on earth today.  I suppose it would be silly if they planned to meet on a battlefield, but I do not suppose that any modern revolutionary would consider doing that!

The United States – and France before them – lost a war in Vietnam because the Viet Cong used guerilla tactics.  Russia lost the war in Afghanistan against villagers who were defending their homes.  Last year Libya was taken over by revolutionaries, and today the Syrian government is having a difficult time putting down revolutionaries in their country.  

All these revolutionaries were/are fighting against stronger firepower, but none were fighting on a battlefield.  They used and still use guerilla tactics – a quick strike here and a quick strike there.  They attack when and where they choose and then evade; they force the stronger side to defend everything.  Unless today’s stronger force is willing to bomb entire towns – think of the urban warfare in Iraq – the aircraft and tanks are useless.  If “the people” support the revolutionaries, it is almost impossible to discern the “guilty” from the “innocent.”  The revolutionaries might not win, but they could force a dictator to bring the international community over to their side and against the dictator.  This kind of warfare has been proven successful time and again.

There is another part of gun history that should be included here.  Gun control is not about guns; it is about governments trying to control citizens. Only a government that is afraid of its own citizens tries to control them; some examples of how governments “controlled” their citizens are as follow.  The dates and the numbers may be wrong, but the general idea is correct.  I know because much of this tyranny occurred in my lifetime, and I have heard the news reports on bodies being found.

Turkey established gun control in 1911.  Between 1915 and 1917, the government exterminated 1.5 million unarmed Armenians who were unable to defend themselves.

 The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.  Between 1929 and 1953, the government exterminated 20 million unarmed dissidents who were unable to defend themselves.

China established gun control in 1935.  Between 1948 and 1952, the government exterminated 20 million political dissidents who were unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Germany established gun control in 1938.  Between 1939 and 1945, the government exterminated 13 million unarmed Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.  Between 1975 and 1977, the government exterminated 1,000,000 educated people who were unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.  Between 1964 and 1981, the government exterminated 100,000 Mayan Indians who were unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.  Between 1971 and 1979, the government exterminated 300,000 Christians who were unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

This makes a grand total of 56 million people who were rounded up and exterminated in the 20^th Century – people who were unarmed and unable to defend themselves. 

The Second Amendment states that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed, and the Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.  I believe that this means we can keep any gun that we can carry. 

The Second Amendment to the Constitution is in place just in case politicians ignore our other rights.  Only people who are free have the right to keep and bear arms; they do not ask permission to bear arms.  This makes them citizens; when this right is taken away, the citizen becomes a subject or a slave.  Wise and prudent citizens understand that the day may come when they have to fight to protect their rights.  They know that honest, law-abiding citizens do not shoot to kill but to stay alive.  They understand that citizens who know guns also know peace and safety, but citizens with no guns also have no peace or safety.  They understand that there are millions of firearm owners who never kill anyone but provide peace and security for everyone.

Two quotes attributed to two famous Founders should be remembered by all Americans.  “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”  (Thomas Jefferson)  “Those who trade liberty for security have neither.”  (John Adams)

Americans should be applauding and thanking gun owners instead of trying to disarm them.  It is the honest, law-abiding gun owners who are protecting the freedoms and liberties that we enjoy.  Remember that the Constitution of the United States of America was copyrighted in 1791 and all Rights are preserved by it.  

Sgt. Reckless

                I recently heard an interesting history lesson that I want to share with you.  The story is about a horse named Reckless, just one of numerous animals that played a part in the wars of the world; however, Reckless was an exceptional horse.  She was originally a race horse, but she was purchased by a Marine for $250.  She became a pack horse during the Korean War and carried weapons, ammunition, and supplies to the Marines. 

During the battle for a location called Outpost Vegas, Reckless made fifty-one trips up and down the hill.  She carried equipment up the hill and wounded soldiers down the hill.  The amazing thing about her accomplishments is that she made the trips by herself through enemy fire.  The Marines brought her home to the United States to “retire” her.  She lived the rest of her life at Camp Pendleton where she died and was buried.  This video tells her amazing story.    

Margaret Allison Caldwell McHenry

                    Margaret Allison "Peggy" Caldwell was born in Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1762.  Her father was David Caldwell. 

                    Caldwell married James McHenry, son of Daniel and Agnes McHenry and signer of the United States Constitution, in January 1784 in Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland. 

                    James and Margaret became the parents of John McHenry (born March 27, 1791, in Maryland; married Julianna Elizabeth Howard; died October 1822 in Mercerburg, Franklin, Pennsylvania.  There was one grandchild:  James Howard McHenry (born October 11, 1820, in Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland; died September 25, 1888, in Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland).

                    I was pleased to find this information at a genealogy site with much more information.  I was saddened to not see any personal/family history included other than simple facts.

"The Soviet Story"

A few weeks ago I wrote a post about progressives and how they want to change our history and traditions. Since then I have learned a little more about how socialists change history and traditions. Edvins Snore, a Latvian filmmaker, wrote and directed a documentary entitled "The Soviet Story". After his film was released in Russia, this man was burned in effigy on the streets of Moscow by young hoodlums who blamed him for rewriting the nation's history. He wrote a special article for Glenn Beck's newsletter, from which the following information came. He made his documentary film because he wanted "to show the world the history of those nations, millions of people, who lived behind the Iron Curtain, under Soviet occupation." The current Russian text books apparently depict Stalin as a successful manager, but they fail to note that under his "successful management" there were 7 million Ukrainians who were "intentionally starved to death." Under his management "whole nations and ethnic groups were wiped off the map." In 1940 the Soviets invaded the three Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia and deported all the people to Siberia. Then millions of settler from Russia moved into the Baltic States. The Soviets did much the same thing in the Ukraine. In 1944 the Soviets deported the whole Chechen nation - men, women and children - to Central Asia. The people were loaded into cattle trucks and moved in one day - February 23, 1944. Only 80 percent of the people survived the move. The impact of the Soviet actions in these nations is evident today. The former Soviet republics are free democracies now, but their societies are divided in both their ethics and ideals. These divisions increase the risks of conflict and instability. This documentary shows footage of the renowned British playwright Bernard Shaw calling for extermination of "parasite classes" in the 1930s. It also includes footage of the Soviet-Nazi friendship during the early part of World War II.

Traditions and History

My younger sister spent the past five or six weeks sharing her memories of childhood traditions. She wrote them as a gift to her children and was gracious enough to share them with her siblings also. I am very grateful for her written memories because they helped me remember more of the traditions of our extended family. I found that for numerous occasions, her memories were much different than my own and/or much more detailed. Traditions and memories of those experiences have helped to make us what we are at the present time and form a big part of our history. It is important to have traditions as well as to remember our history correctly. This is one reason why progressives want to change the history and traditions and traditions of our nation. In May 2008, Michelle Obama said, "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation." What did she mean when she said that we would have to change our conversations, our traditions, and our history? We change the conversation when we put a different slant on the words. We change traditions when we stop repeating the stories of our national heritage, when we take prayer out of the schools, when we stop pledging allegiance to the flag and start pledging allegiance to the earth. Another way to change history is to say that white things are now black and black is now white. For example, President Obama has said that we are no longer a Christian nation. How can he say that when 92 percent of Americans believe in God? How can he say that when 83 percent of Americans believe that public schools should celebrate religious holidays? How can he say that when 66% of Americans celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday honoring the birth of Jesus Christ? History can be changed by emphasizing something different. What are the schools teaching our children? Schools in Wisconsin teach the history of organized labor but won't allow anything about Jesus Christ in their school systems. Other schools teach evolution but denounce the possibility that the earth was created by God. The people who attended the town halls were depicted as trouble makers - but not one of them became violent or was arrested. Those people who want lower taxes are depicted as people that hate the poor. Returning military veterans are depicted as dangerous to our nation. Tea party goers are simply ignored. An example is Time Magazine's year in pictures review which did not include any pictures of either the 9/12 rally in Washington or the tax day tea party protests that were happening all over the country. Millions of Americans protested out-of-control government spending, corruption, special interests, and the health care reform, but none of these was important enough to Time Magazine to be included for the year. If the media is brought under the government umbrella, we can expect that history will be recorded much different than it is really happening. I learned a very important lesson from reading about family traditions through the eyes of my younger sister. I learned one more reason why each of us should be keeping journals. We need to write history as we see it happening in order to have a foundation to judge what other people write.

Paul Revere

We have all probably heard the story of how Paul Revere made a midnight ride, but did we hear the true story? I have been thinking a lot about Paul Revere lately so I thought I would do a historical post today. Much of the information for this post came either from the World Book Encyclopedia or America The Last Best Hope (both as quoted below).
Paul Revere was born on January 1, 1735, in Boston, Massachusetts, and was the son of a silversmith. His family descended from French Huguenots, and their family name was originally Rivoire. His father changed the name to Revere "that the Bumpkins should pronounce it easier" (James Kirby Martin, World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 16, p 267). Paul learned the silversmith's trade and entered his father's business after schooling and marriage.
Paul became interested in obtaining liberty for the American colonists and worked with some of the leaders of the revolution, particularly John Hancock and Samuel Adams. He was a participant in the Boston Tea Party and served as a messenger for the Boston patriots. The British were well aware of him long before his famous ride.
When the British commander in chief, General Thomas Gage, was instructed by King George III to enforce order among the colonists, Gage sent an army of 700 men to Concord to destroy military supplies and to arrest Samuel Adams and John Hancock. The orders were secret but had been leaked to the patriots. Paul Revere rode to Concord to warn the patriots there to move the military supplies.
Two days later when the British army assembled to make the march, Joseph Warren, a patriot leader, sent Revere and William Dawes to warn Adams and Hancock in Lexington and patriots in Concord. Paul arranged for a signal to warn friends in Charlestown. It would be flashed from the Old North Church steeple in Boston. One lantern would mean the British were coming by land, and two lanterns meant they were coming by sea.
Somewhere around 10:00 p.m. on April 18, 1775, Revere left Boston by boat, going right past the British ship. He arrived in Lexington about midnight on a borrowed horse. According to William J. Bennett in America The Last Best Hope, p 78) "Revere shouted '… The regulars are coming out!' (Revere would only have confused colonists if he had yelled: `The British are coming,' since Massachusetts people still thought of themselves as British."
Revere, William Dawes and Dr. Samuel Prescott left for Concord about 1:00 a.m. They were surprised by a British cavalry patrol, who captured Revere. The only one to get to Concord was Prescott. Revere was allowed by the British to return to Lexington but without a horse. Revere fled to Burlington with Adams and Hancock but returned the next day to Lexington to get important papers from Hancock's trunk.
Because of the warning, minutemen (thus named "because they could be ready for military duty in a minute" according to Bennett in America, The Last Best Hope, p 78) were waiting in Lexington when the British arrived.
Revere continued to support the cause for liberty by commanding a garrison during 1778-1779. He printed the first Continental paper currency. When the war started he learned to manufacture gun powder. During and after the war he continued the silversmith trade. He made copper plates for printing and engraving, cast cannon and bells in bronze, and made copper fittings for the U.S.S. Constitution ("Old Ironsides").
Paul Revere the great patriot died in 1818 after serving his country well for many years.

I own a small fry pan made by Revere Ware. I wondered if there were any connection to Paul Revere and went to the company site to find the following information, which I find interesting. "Revere Ware Corporation began as a division of Revere Copper & Brass, a metal company based in New York. Revere Copper & Brass was formed in 1928 from a merger of six small copper and brass companies. One of the six firms in the 1928 merger traced its roots back to the famed American revolutionary and silversmith Paul Revere."
It always makes life a little bit more interesting when we know the history behind the experience. Did you learn anything new about the midnight ride of Paul Revere?