Has anyone ever asked you to give a list of five or ten people you'd most like to meet, or to have a private discussion with? Have you ever thought about what your answer would be if asked that question?...
I know for myself, and if it were possible, I'd like to meet such people as George Washington and John Quincy Adams, to name a couple of historical figures. But I'd also like to meet and talk to certain contemporaries of mine. At least a couple of spots on my list would be reserved to kindred souls within the ranks of traditional conservatism. You know, down-to-earth types whose work commands your respect.
Well, today I had the opportunity to have a nice conversation with one of these kindred souls via email, and the conversation was very pleasant, very enlightening, very uplifting. And we discussed one of my favorite topics to some extent which is the fourteenth amendment and the relationship between its establishment and where we are today.
I won't go into anything else here except to say that I was turned on to some very helpful materials, including a book title that I've heard before but which sub-title seemed to elude me. I'm told that if I'm into the fourteenth amendment, then I'm in for a real treat in reading this book. And I am into the fourteenth amendment, big time, as my brothers over at the AFB can fully attest. So I can barely wait to get my hands on a copy.
But I would simply say to that individual of whom I speak, it was an honor discussing this topic with you, and I appreciate your cordiality very much. Thanks for all your help, and again, thanks for what you do. And keep up the great work!
-TM
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Who would be in YOUR top ten?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Terry, now I am wondering who the person was with whom you had the conversation, but I guess I will have to live with the mystery.
As for my top ten, that's a hard one; there are so many. Paul the apostle would be one of them.
I would probably like to meet many of those in my family tree who I admire, or simply those who lived really interesting lives, who blazed trails or did something new and remarkable. Probably some of my ancestors who came here as colonists.
I would love to meet Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
Of all the Founding Fathers I would most like to talk with Thomas Jefferson, not just because of the familial connection but because I would like to ask him what he was thinking when he wrote the line 'all men are created equal' because in the name of that line, so much mischief and trouble has been wrought. I am sure he meant something other than 'equal outcomes' or egalitarianism. And I would like to know: was he a Deist or a nonbeliever or a Christian? I have heard so many rumors and lies about him; I'd like to hear the truth from him. Maybe one day we'll all get the chance.
Of living people, and political figures, I would love to meet or talk with Tom Tancredo. He seems like a genuine, sincere man, with a delightful sense of humor.
Ron Paul also seems like someone I could have a nice talk with.
-VA
VA, thank you for commenting. These are exactly the kind of thoughts I'd hoped to get.
I've told the story before, but I'll tell it again for your benefit, and those who've never read it before.
I was once, many years ago, shopping for art supplies when I spied out a large copy of the DoI. There was no price tag on it so I asked the attendant, who happened to be the owner of the store, and who also was an older gentleman around 60, what the price was for the item. Rather than give me a price, he went on something of a tirade about Jefferson's phrase "all men are equal."
At first I was taken aback, and since I was pretty young and inexperienced, I was a little hesitant to respond. But I managed to gather myself and to explain that Jefferson never said "All men are equal," he said rather that "all men are created equal," then I showed him on the copy I had in hand. He acknowledged this changed the whole meaning as he had always understood it, but he still thought that Jefferson had made a mistake. I disagreed, but I didn't have much at my disposal to work with.
That was when I decided to commit to memory the entirety (well, with the exception of the list of grievances) of the DoI, and I began to work on that goal immediately. And that has served me well since whenever I run into these kinds of things.
Jefferson claimed to be a Christian, in his words "in the only way in which he (Christ) intended it." However, he denied Christ's deity, as well as the authority of the gospels and the apostles that wrote them. So, I think he was not a Christian in the sense that Christ intended it.
I would love to meet some of those people you mention, including Jefferson. And as far as this "equality of outcomes" goes, you have to really read that into the declaration as far as I'm concerned. And I think the federalist writers had a point when one of them (Hamilton) said:
"What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? ...whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government."
Thanks for leaving the great comments! And btw, who knows, you might be one of those contemporaries I spoke of in the entry.
-TM
If you met John Adams, he might be able to tell you what Jefferson meant by that phrase! To Hamilton's point, the general spirit of the people was such that the clarification that Adams sought was deemed unnecessary - pity for us, such a dependent and ignorant lot (present company excluded).
I'd like to meet Lincoln, he'd be my number one. Washington, Hamilton (of course) and Madison.
Paul, of course.
Gens. Sherman and Patton.
Reagan, naturally. Nixon's nine and I'd add Ann Coulter to round out my list. If I thought about it more, I'd probably change it, but those are the ones off the top of my head.
-MT
TM, and MT, thanks to both of you.
I agree with many of your choices also.
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson, when he wrote that phrase, just could not have anticipated our present-day mentality or what future generations, so detached from the cultural roots Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton and the rest took for granted. So TJ likely didn't imagine what would be read into his words. At least that's my understanding, or is there something I am missing?
-VA
VA,
You're right on the mark. It's my understanding from my knowledge of Adams - from McCullough's biography, principally - that he objected to the wording that was eventually used. He wanted it more direct, along the lines of: all men are created with equal rights. Needless to say, Adams was right, but the men who worked on the DoI thought such a clarification unnecessary. Likely, they couldn't imagine a world in which people could be such blockheads as to think that all people are created equal!
This is one of my pet peeves, when people take that language from the DoI and use it stupidly to support some utterly moronic position. I seem to remember someone doing that recently in an immigration discussion, which cuased me to pass out from frustration. OK, not really, but it was close.
-MT
Well, you know my position on this, MT. Just because Jefferson was chosen from the delegates to the continental congress to write the declaration, that doesn't give him ultimate authority on the matter. (And as an aside, my recollection is that Adams was the one who nominated Jefferson. Is that correct?)
It all has to be taken into perspective, and that means we have to judge the part by its relationship to the whole. And that means we have to understand something about the whole. Elsewise we end up with a totally screwed up understanding of what was intended. I think that's what we're mainly lacking today in America, that whole perspective.
People take a part and form whole doctrines around that one little part that can't be understood properly outside the context of the whole. And many times they know nothing of the whole, nor do they seem to want to know anything of it.
And I can't see at all where Adams's rendition would have been helpful under modern conceptions. When I read that "all men are created with equal rights," and I apply the general liberal mindset to that phraseology, it seems to me just as easy to arrive at "all men are equal" from that rendition as it is from Jefferson's version. So what it all boils down to is that liberalism dominates the American mindset these days. And as long as it continues to dominate, this equality of outcomes nonsense will continue to rule.
So, essentially, I'll probably forever defend Jefferson's phrase as he wrote it; as the whole body of the Continental Congress, and by extension the whole of the founding generation agreed to it because 1) I don't really see it as belonging to him to begin with; I see it more as an expression of the mindset of the whole people of the United States in 1776, and 2) I'll always invoke the federalist writers on the subject because I know that with respect to Hamilton's quote in my former comments, he was speaking in broad terms meaning that the concept would apply forever and for always, not just to his generation, and not just to the freedom of the press. His was just an example of an application of a broader concept to a specific idea.
Like I've said before, they weren't trying to thust anything upon us or anyone else. They understood the concept of free will and what that meant for future generations of Americans. In short, that we'd have to work out our own salvation. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.
VA, I don't think you're giving Jefferson enough credit. He understood, I think, that future generations of Americans would more than likely wrench his phrase out of context, thus forming a pretext to set their agendas in place. One thing I know about Jefferson (because I've read a lot of his writings, his autobiography and so forth) is that he had no personal ambition to establish a form of government that future generations would be bound to.
The phrase in question, and as he wrote it, was sufficient for his generation as he expressed it. And that was sufficient to him. Sure, he wanted to "secure the blessings of liberty...to our posterity" just like the other leading founders did, but he did not want to bind us to it, because that's not liberty, it's slavery. He knew that ultimately (again given the principle of free will) each successive generation would have to determine for themselves what constitutes liberty.
I've said this before in one way or the other, but I think it's very important for us to take into consideration that when Jefferson wrote in the declaration that "We (heavy on the "WE") hold these truths to be..." he was not only making a distinction between the Americans of 1776 and other nations of the era, but he was also making a distinction between Americans of 1776 and future generations of Americans as well.
Whether we (meaning us) hold these truths to be self-evident is ultimately up to us to decide. I think Jefferson understood this, so once again "whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government."
Thanks to both of you for the great comments. I love these kinds of discussions, as you can probably tell.
-Terry
Post a Comment