The XYZ Affair (from “Have To” History)

May 27, 2021June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About… the “XYZ Affair”

Three Big Things

1. France was mad because the U.S. was making nice with England, who France had only recently helped them break away from and who France hated most of the time anyway.

2. U.S. efforts to make nice with France led to serious drama when French representatives (code names “X,” “Y,” and “Z”) made demands the U.S. contingent found offensive.

3. The resulting kerfuffle led to a “Quasi-War” abroad and more pronounced divisions between political parties at home before being resolved by a new round of diplomacy and a new treaty. The dispute also prompted the Federalists to push through the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts (which didn’t turn out all that well).

Background

If you’ve seen Hamilton (or at least listened to the soundtrack), you might be surprised to learn that many of the characters and events portrayed were based on real people and events in American history. Seriously, there should have been a note on the program or something to that effect. It would have added a whole other dimension to the experience.

In any case, I refer you to one of the highlights of the second act, “Cabinet Battle #2”:

The issue on the table: France is on the verge of war with England. Now do we provide aid and troops to our French allies, or do we stay out of it? … Secretary Jefferson, you have the floor, sir…

Jefferson, as you may recall, thought it was a complete no-brainer that the U.S. should jump in and assist France. French aid had tipped the balance in the Revolutionary War and their rhetoric was rooted in the same Enlightenment ideals that inspired the colonies to rebel in the first place. Hamilton thought getting involved was a horrible idea, particularly since the folk with whom they’d actually signed a treaty (the King and Queen) were dead at that point, beheaded by French revolutionaries. President Washington agreed with Hamilton, and in the very next number (“it must be nice… it must be nice… to have Washington on your side…”) the nation’s first two political parties were formed – right there on stage. It wasn’t the beginning of tensions over how the new nation should be run, but it certainly helped clarify and solidify the sides.

The Federalists (think Alexander Hamilton) were pushing for a strong central government and a more unified nation. Despite the recent Revolutionary War, Federalists still tended to see the world through English eyes. It was the Federalists who’d pushed for the Constitution (which replaced the much looser Articles of Confederation) and who relied on the “three branches” system to keep the government checked and balanced. If taken to the extreme, their approach to the Constitution was that anything it didn’t strictly prohibit was probably OK.

The Anti-Federalists, better known as the Democratic-Republicans (who didn’t officially include “Southern M*****-F******” as part of their title), were less enthused about strong central government. They worried that the young nation would fall back into the same patterns and problems they’d had under King George. Democratic-Republicans loved the revolutionary fervor of the French and believed that agriculture and local control were the keys to extending and strengthening the enlightened, independent nature of their new country. The Constitution gave government specific functions and powers, and anything beyond that was a leap into corruption and self-destruction. Historians often refer to this group as the “Jeffersonian Republicans” because, you know… Jefferson.

How to handle France wasn’t the ONLY issue dividing these emerging parties, but it was pretty high on the list.

Jay’s Treaty (1794)

Right after giving France their promise ring, however, Uncle Sam** slid right back into making goo-goo eyes with his ex, England. Washington and other Federalists were more pragmatic than they were idealistic; they had little interest in endless conflict with the world’s most powerful nation. They signed a treaty resolving several points of contention: the British agreed to pull out of the Northwest Territory and to leave American shipping alone (although that one didn’t exactly last) while the U.S. paid off some outstanding debts to British merchants. Both sides compromised a bit on shared boundaries. Perhaps most importantly, the treaty laid the groundwork for a positive trading relationship with England.

It’s amazing how many things can be worked out when there’s money to be made.

France saw this as a betrayal of all they’d thought they meant to the U.S., particularly after they’d sacrificed so much to help the young nation win its independence… from the very nation it was now making all cuddly with! France and England had been in recurring conflict since roughly the Neolithic Era, so Uncle Sam’s insistence that they were just friends (albeit with benefits) rang hollow. France began attacking American shipping, which hurt America’s feelings and kinda ruined how nice it was that England had finally stopped doing it.

In the middle of this madness, George Washington decided not to run for a third term in 1796. (“One last time… we’ll teach them how to say goodbye…”). The unenviable task of following the Father of the Nation into office fell to John Adams with Thomas Jefferson as VP, which was tricky since they were from different political parties – Adams was a Federalist, and Jefferson, well… was not.

The Adams Tightrope

President John Adams wanted to patch things up with France but without alienating England. He wasn’t the towering figure Washington had been and often made decisions based on how he thought things should work instead of how they did.

To be fair, Washington had struggled on this front as well. Before leaving office, he’d appointed Charles Pinckney as the U.S. “Minister to France.” It wasn’t a great match. Pinckney was a staunch Federalist from an essentially aristocratic background – the exact sort of person the French were gleefully beheading on a regular basis at the time. Adams hoped to do better.

He conferred with his VP, Jefferson, who suggested sending Madison – a Democratic-Republican with revolutionary street cred and who knew how to speak liberté, égalité, and fraternité. Instead, Adams chose the safer political path and selected more Federalists – the party who hated France to begin with and couldn’t relate to them at all. They arrived in Paris disgusted with the people, the politics, and the culture in general – not the ideal foundation for diplomacy. The French Foreign Minister, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, originally refused to see them. Eventually he sent word through intermediaries that a meeting might be arranged if the Americans agreed in advance to pay off all claims made by American merchants against France, loan France a ton of money at rock-bottom interest rates, and offer Talleyrand a substantial bribe just to get things going.

In better dynamics, these might have served as a starting point for under-the-table negotiations. As things were, it merely offended and annoyed the American coterie. They wrote back to President Adams, who in turn informed Congress that things weren’t going well and that maybe they should start preparing for the possibility of war. Not wanting to stir things up more than they already were, or risk the safety of his representatives in France, Adams substituted letters – W, X, Y, and Z – for the names of the French go-betweens. The subsequent kerfuffle, then, could just as easily have become known as the ABC Affair, the WXYZ Conflict, or the Beta Epsilon Gamma Kappa Shenanigans. He also withheld numerous details of exactly what was going badly, informing them merely that the French were being uncooperative and things could get ugly.

Well… uglier.

Let Me Be Frank(ophile) With You

France had by this time closed its ports to ships from any nation not totally “Team France” and had granted permission to French vessels to capture and search any ship they suspected of carrying British goodies – which could be any of them. Congress nevertheless insisted on getting the full TMZ report before taking further action. It passed resolutions and called Adams all sorts of bad names (although that last part wasn’t exactly new). Eventually, Adams released the letters from his representatives in France, including the demands made by X, Y, and Z.

The Democratic-Republicans simply couldn’t believe anything negative about their revolutionary brethren across the ocean. Surely Adams was lying, or the emissaries had misunderstood, or – and this one was a crowd favorite – Talleyrand’s demands were a natural result of Adam’s push for a military buildup, despite those two things having occurred in the opposite order, many months apart. (No sense letting a little thing like objective reality interfere with a good political barrage.)

American outrage was about what one would expect for a generation still drunk on the patriotic fervor of its own revolution. “Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!” cried the masses. War was never officially declared, but this “Quasi-War” was definitely a few shoves and swear words past being “at peace.”

À La Réflexion…

Talleyrand had by this point realized he’d miscalculated and things weren’t going the way he’d hoped. He began scrambling to reopen negotiations with the U.S. while navigating revolution at home which was becoming increasingly unpredictable and bloody. Napoleon was rapidly gaining power as well, and while he loved a good scrap as much as anyone, the General was more interested in using France’s claim on Louisiana Territory (which was technically owned by Spain at the time) to help finance war in Europe.

President Adams sent new representatives to France, thus averting a real war. They eventually reached a new agreement – the Convention of 1800. (It’s also called the Treaty of Mortefontaine, but seriously – who even wants to try saying that, let alone remembering it?)

Hostilities ceased. France gave back America’s boats and the U.S. agreed to reimburse owners for any losses incurred as a result. Perhaps most importantly, France and the U.S. agreed to be trading besties again, although the U.S. was not required to quit seeing England in order to do so. This was to be something of an “open partnership.” As long as the brides didn’t have to share a bed or anything, they’d ignore one another and make it work.

Why It Matters

Public backlash to the Federalist handling of the affair contributed to the election of Thomas Jefferson, which in turn led to the Louisiana Purchase, the establishment of the U.S. Military Academy, and the end of the (legal) slave trade in the U.S. While it’s likely most of this would have occurred with or without Jefferson in the White House, the specifics likely would have unfolded quite differently, and it’s impossible to say what THAT might have looked like.

The XYZ Affair was the first major foreign policy dilemma faced by the young United States. It presented a question they’d be faced with many times over the coming centuries – when is it better to fight on principle and when does it make more sense to compromise in order to keep things running smoothly and peacefully The treaties with England and France helped the young nation continue building its economy, which over time became a major source of strength and influence (and remains so today).

Perhaps most importantly, repeated clashes over which foreign powers to support (and to what extent) led to the passage of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts. These you should already know about because (a) they’re relatively easy to understand and remember and (b) they don’t even sound boring. If anything, the moniker oversells them a bit.

How To Remember This

The most important things about the XYZ Affair weren’t really the details of the situation itself but what it revealed about the U.S. at the time and its impact on the nation going forward. It highlighted some of the key differences between the two major political parties (despite many of the Founding Fathers going to great lengths to avoid parties existing to begin with) as well as the growing strength and influence of the U.S. in world affairs. It led to the Quasi-War, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and renewed peace with France (without sacrificing peace with England). The U.S. slung enough testosterone to demonstrate it wished to be treated like one of the big kids while going to great lengths to avoid actual war.

The jilted lover analogy hinted at above isn’t without its problems, but it’s tawdry and inappropriate – just like France and their Democratic-Republican mistresses. Anyone horrified by the comparison is probably a British sympathizer just like the Federalists with all their rules and order and financial security. The Jeffersonians, on the other hand, were all about freedom and slogans and running naked through arable fields of enlightened rule.

What You’re Likely To Be Asked

This one lends itself readily to either multiple choice questions (with “The XYZ Affair” as the correct answer) or prompts asking about challenges confronting the young nation, particularly in reference to foreign affairs. It also comes up regularly in questions about early political parties, often as an example of issues over which they disagreed.

The Texas eighth grade TEKS include this:

(5) History. The student understands the challenges confronted by the government and its leaders in the early years of the republic and the Age of Jackson. The student is expected to… (C) explain the origin and development of American political parties… (E) identify the foreign policies of presidents Washington through Monroe…

Most other state standards include similar rhetoric – political parties, foreign policy, economic stability, etc.

APUSH, too, loves it some XYZ Affair. One of the primary themes – “American in the World (WOR)” seems tailor-made for discussing this event:

Diplomatic, economic, cultural, and military interactions between empires, nations, and peoples shape the development of America and America’s increasingly important role in the world.

Learning Objective ‘L’ is equally applicable:

Explain how and why political ideas, institutions, and party systems developed and changed in the new republic.

Numerous content standards connect in some way, two quite directly:

War between France and Britain resulting from the French Revolution presented challenges to the United States over issues of free trade and foreign policy and fostered political disagreement. (KC-3.3.II.B)
Political leaders in the 1790s took a variety of positions on issues such as the relationship between the national government and the states, economic policy, foreign policy, and the balance between liberty and order. This led to the formation of political parties – most significantly the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. (KC-3.2.III.B)

How To Sound Like You Know More Than You Do

If you can keep track of 80% of the details and interwoven issues involved in the XYZ Affair, you don’t have to shoot any higher. It’s legitimately a tough topic to keep straight and knowing your basics is as impressive as you need to get.

~~~~~~~~

**The term “Uncle Sam” didn’t come along for a few more years, but you know exactly who I mean. Don’t be difficult.

Humble Magniloquence (Purdy Words in Primary Sources)

March 3, 2017June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

There are folks you expect to write all fancy. Poets, for example. Certain flavors of novelists. Artsy musician types. George Will.

Education bloggers, not so much.

That’s just as well. Rhetorical flourish is a tricky business. Like cilantro, it can add unexpectedly welcome flavor and complexity, or make an entire passage taste like old soap. And language evolves in such unpredictable fashion that you can never be sure how that bit of clever wordplay might read a generation or two later.

Some historical figures clearly labored over word choice with sufficient fervor that even their personal letters play like Dvorak’s lost drinking songs. Consider Thomas Jefferson in a letter to fellow Virginian and Founding Father-type Edmund Pendleton, dated August 26, 1776:

You seem to have misapprehended my proposition for the choice of a Senate. I had two things in view: to get the wisest men chosen, and to make them perfectly independent when chosen. I have ever observed that a choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom.

They’ve apparently been corresponding about politics – no surprise there, given the parties and the date. Jefferson proffers a sophisticated balance of Enlightened precision and dry wit. His understatement is both amusing and a tad vain.

Then again, he was Thomas Jefferson – so maybe we can let him slide on the latter.

This first secretion from them is usually crude and heterogeneous. But give to those so chosen by the people a second choice themselves, and they generally will chuse wise men.

He’s proposing what was essentially an electoral college for selecting Senators. That’s not how we ended up doing it, although until the 17th Amendment Senators were chosen by their States rather than the people directly, providing a comparable filter. What’s golden here, though, is the straight-faced use of slug imagery in reference to the common man and democracy.

Jefferson was an idealist – he genuinely believed a nation of ever-revolutionary small farmers was as close to heaven on earth as mankind could ever approach. And he does get there – “they generally will chuse wise men.” It’s just that the process, in his mind, must be carefully designed to accommodate those initial “crude secretions.”

Is it sad that I’m eternally entertained by phrases like that? On second thought, don’t answer that.

Later in the same letter, Jefferson considers the issue who is or is not qualified to vote or hold office.

You have lived longer than I have and perhaps may have formed a different judgment on better grounds; but my observations do not enable me to say I think integrity the characteristic of wealth.

Again with the understatement, this time combined with a purely rhetorical deference to his cohort.

In general I believe the decisions of the people, in a body, will be more honest and more disinterested than those of wealthy men: and I can never doubt an attachment to his country in any man who has his family and peculium in it.

‘Peculium’ here means ‘stuff’. It’s one of those vocabulary words that gives my kids fits. It’s rare enough that it’s not always in student dictionaries and it gives them nothing to work with in terms of root words or prefixes or whatnot. It does, however, come up again in evolved form in President Jackson’s speech to Congress on Indian Removal in 1830:

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations…

It’s the same Latin root as ‘peculiar’ – uncommon, or distinctive. Go back far enough and it suggests property belonging or assigned to a specific person. Suddenly what seem like unrelated definitions start to make sense. ‘Peculium’ = someone’s stuff. ‘Pecuniary’ = related to wealth. ‘Peculiar’ = weird. All from ‘distinctive,’ but said fancy.

Which is, if you think about it, rather fitting, given the definitions.

Sometimes what grabs your attention is simply the way language changes over time:

The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes, which you say you have heard insisted on by some, I assure you was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to. Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them, strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime.

Good Lord, Tom – gasconade, much?

Still, how can you not love “sanguinary hue”? So highbrow, yet so graphic. My students, of course, are completely derailed by ‘penal laws’ and rarely manage to return to the richness of the phrase preceding it. Because, you know, they’re 14. Literally.

But that’s Jefferson – a known intellectual and proud froo-froo. He was, after all, the guy to whom a bunch of other smart people turned when it was time to boldly-but-nobly declare our breakup with England. “We hold these truths to be self-evident” and all that.

I’ve been compiling primary sources on David L. Payne and the “boomer” movement lately – an important part of Oklahoma and American history, to be sure, but not a group you might assume prompted much purdy talkifying. And yet, a century after the lofty rhetoric of the Founders and their ilk, we find the most interesting phraseology in humble local newspapers when he’s discussed.

From The Sedalia Weekly Bazoo, Sedalia, MO (August 24, 1880):

Capt. L. D. Payne, arrested for an alleged violation of the federal laws governing intercourse with the Indian territory west of Arkansas…

Yeah, sometimes it’s not the fancy talk so much as it is the repeated use of words like “intercourse.” Again, 14.

…arrived Thursday at Fort Smith in custody of the United Marshal and will be tried before Judge Parker, of the western district court of Arkansas, whose jurisdiction covers Oklahoma…
The question to be decided in it is whether or not for the present white settlers shall be barred from that territory, which includes some of the most fertile land in the world, and that land be used only by nomadic tribes who will not cultivate and develop its resource; whether it shall be a farm or a hunting-ground; an abode of civilization or savagery; a garden or a wild.

My my! Of course, major media back then tended to more openly editorial. They weren’t all fair and balanced like we’ve come to expect today.

From The Weekly Kansas Chief, Troy, KS (May 05, 1881):

A private dispatch was received by Oklahoma Payne in this city yesterday, announcing an unfavorable result of his trial before the United States court at Fort Smith. The faces of a number of men who had gathered to his headquarters in response to a call for a meeting to-day visibly lengthened…
{Payne} made a full statement of his arrest and trial and the formal announcement of the result, but urged the settlers to stand by their organization until victory should crown their efforts…

That bit of divine flourish may have reflected Payne’s speech rather than the reporter’s biases, but still…

And I like the “visibly lengthened” faces by way of description. It reminds me of the way sportscasters come up with hundreds of ways to say “ran,” “scored,” “failed,” or “wow.”

There were eighty-seven present at the meeting… Resolutions were reported from a committee and adopted urging Payne to renew his efforts at affecting a lodgment in territory; criticising the place of Payne’s trial, and asking a change of venue. After which the great Oklahoma boom collapsed.

Funny how concise can convey so much dismissiveness. Also, “his efforts at affecting a lodgment”? I chuckle thereforth.

From the Omaha Daily Bee, Omaha, NE (November 30, 1881):

Out of the active brain and adventurous spirit of Capt. Dave Payne, known in border life and drama as the Scout of the Cimarron, grew the project known as the Oklahoma colony, scheme. And that scheme is the settlement of the lands belonging to the government of the United States, a vast body of fine arable land in the Indian Territory, on the north fork of the Canadian river.

This reads less like the first paragraph of a newspaper report and more like a pitch for a TV miniseries starring Brian Keith and Rob Schneider in his dramatic comeback role.

The project of planting a white colony in the very heart of the Indian Nation was at first regarded with indifference and afterwards with absolute ridicule; but to those who personally know Capt. Payne, and know him as he is, this project is not the dream of a fanatic. To them Payne is fostering no wild, filibustering scheme, nor lawlessly defying the government of the United States. Capt. Payne is a man of ability and legislative experience…
He is thoroughly conversant with Indian customs, manners, and warfare, skilled in woodcraft, and the peer of any marksman on the border with the rifle. His courage never was questioned. He is a giant in stature and a marvel in strength. Such, then, is a pen-picture of Capt. Dave Payne—”Oklahoma” Payne as he is now called…

I confess I mostly just like the created term, “pen-picture.”

The Kansas City Journal, quoted by The Wichita City Eagle, Wichita, KS (May 25, 1882):

“…if Payne and his followers would display one-half the energy and perseverance in tilling a few acres of Kansas soil as they do in getting a foothold in the Indian Territory, they would have no cause to complain of impecuniosity.

Isn’t it funny how once you know a strange new word, you seem to come across it, or its variations, everywhere? Impecuniosity…? Expialidocious!

It is a too common fault of the Indolent and shiftless that they nurse their idleness by dreams of something just beyond their reach. The farmer who by poor management finds it impossible to accumulate even a small store of money for a rainy day, is often found making elaborate calculations for selling out and removing to the Pacific coast; whereas, if he would devote as much money to the comfort of himself and family or to the improvement of his farm or stock, as it would cost him to remove his family to Oregon or Washington Territory, he would be much the wiser.”

Don’t hold back, Kansas. What do you really think of the boomers?

From The New York Times, New York, NY (February 03, 1883):

The language of PAYNE’S circular glows with adjectives and promises. The beautiful land of Oklahoma is “the garden spot, the Eden of modern times.” “Come,” says PAYNE, “and go with us to this beautiful land and secure for yourself and children homes in the richest most beautiful and best country that the Great Creator in His Goodness, has made for man.” But the circular fails to convey with sufficient clearness the information that this garden spot is no more open to settlement by PAYNE and his colonists than are the Central Park and Boston Common. The Territory belongs to the Indians and is secured to them by treaties.

That’s a nice analogy, the park thing. It plays off of Payne’s Eden imagery, while offering a sharp rhetorical contrast. His ideas are diminished and refuted by the sudden downshift in language. Sweet!

PAYNE has been taken by the nape of the neck once already and pitched out of the Territory. If he carries out his announced intention and the Government does its duty, he will be pitched out again and the foolish citizens who allow themselves to be inveigled into an unlawful enterprise by his fine promises will get into serious trouble.

“Now, Junior – don’t be getting inveigled into no unlawful enterprises!”

My absolute favorite, though, is less about vocabulary and more about structure and tone. It’s also from The New York Times, this time on April 9, 1891:

Topeka, Kan., April 8.- Is Oklahoma really overrun with negroes, and has there been an influx of pauper negroes from the South? So many conflicting answers have been given in response to these two questions that it was impossible to arrive at the truth…
In order to determine the truth, THE TIMES’s representative determined to visit the Territory and see what was to be seen, and to learn from interested persons as much of the truth as they could be prevailed upon to surrender. Those who have never attempted to draw the truth from an Oklahomaite can hardly realize the difficulties that are presented.

Imagine, if you can, a day and age in which the Times was periodically a tad opinionated about such things.

And… “Oklahomaite”?

The Territory was born in falsehood, was baptized in falsehood, and falsehood has been the principal article of diet ever since that fateful 23rd day of April, 1889, when the “sooners” became the leading citizens of a country opened to settlement too late in the year for the planting of crops, and to which the poverty-stricken were invited by speculators and impecunious lawyers…

OH-MY-GOD-ARE-VARIATIONS-OF-THAT-WORD-GOING-TO-BE-EVERYWHERE-NOW?!?! Was it trending that century or something?

…who had been permitted to enter beforehand by a pig-headed Administration, which could see nothing good outside the ague-stricken Wabash bottoms of Indiana.

That last bit is a jab at President Benjamin Harrison. While I’m sorry for the ghost of the man who officially opened up O.T. to white settlement, I can’t help but experience mild rapture at any outburst involving “ague-stricken Wabash bottoms.”

*snort*

I actually love this whole piece enough that I wrote at length about it here and here, and even transcribed it in its entirety. For now, though, I’m well-past my own self-imposed rambling limits and have said far too little with far too many words of my own.

I assure you that I rue this impecunious, if epiphenomenal, imbroglio.

Nope – doesn’t really work when I try it. Oh well.

RELATED POST: Defining Moments

Building A Wall of Separation (Faith & School)

September 2, 2016August 10, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

The U.S. Constitution was written as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation – our first effort at writing a broad set of laws by which to govern the nation. The Articles had guaranteed the States almost complete sovereignty and absolute independence from one another – a great idea in theory, but not as workable as one might hope in practice.

It was understandable they’d err on the side of freedom, having finally won an extended and bitter war with the Motherland over a King they’d claimed was a “Tyrant.” There were over two dozen specific examples of his excessive rule-making and liberty-crushing behavior included in the break-up letter penned by the Colonies – a missive better known as the “Declaration of Independence.”

So, you know… downer.

But they had, perhaps, swung a bit too far away from structure and security. The Constitution was an effort to rectify the resulting difficulties. Turns out that sometimes, thoughtful limits actually grease the wheels of liberty and justice for all.

When the U.S. Constitution was finally ready for public review and debate in the late 1780’s, there were many who thought we’d once again overcompensated – this time back towards too much government, and too little freedom. They wanted some sort of written guarantee they wouldn’t be oppressed by this bigger, stronger government.

The authors were appalled at this concern. Obviously any powers not specifically granted to the national government by this document remained with the States and the People thereof! To spell out those protections would be… redundant! Possibly even limiting! What if listing some specifically guaranteed rights implied that they were the only ones entirely secured?!

It almost got ugly.

Nevertheless, a compromise was reached. The Constitution was ratified, and a collection of ten clarifying Amendments almost immediately passed as a package deal. Thus, the “Bill of Rights.”

Despite the numbering system, there are far more than ten rights included. Some Amendments, like the Fourth and Fifth, are packed with guarantees and thick verbiage. Others, like the Eighth, are fairly crisp and to the point – although written in such a way as to allow at least 225 years of subsequent debate as to exactly what they mean.

The Third is all but irrelevant. The Seventh, strangely technical. The Second – well, the Second was badly written from the moment it was passed. Forget whatever it may or may not intend to say about the right to bear arms, Madison’s English teacher must have had a fit.

But the best-known is probably the First.

The First Amendment contains six specific protections, somewhat related, and presumably so very important that they all tied for first when the Framers were debating what to guarantee the mostiest mostest.

Let’s take a gander, shall we?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s a meaty one, to be sure. What many people don’t realize is that this version was abbreviated from James Madison’s original text. Here’s what Madison proposed as Amendment Prime:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable. The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

So there’s a lesson in tightening up your language without losing substance, kids.

In any case, these are the biggies that squeezed in ahead of militias and quartering of soldiers, and even beat out due process in order of presentation. The right to protest. The right to associate with whomever you wish, including but certainly not limited to political organizations of any and all stripes. Freedom of the press and of speech – absolute linchpins to any nation hoping to maintain the slightest credibility as a true democracy.

But coming ahead of all of them – earning the first two slots in all of Amendment-dom – are the twin ‘freedom of religion’ clauses.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

In the most basic terms, this is the part that says the government may not do anything to promote or encourage a particular religion or the concept of religion in general. Doing so creates a double curse. It leads to the marginalization and eventual persecution of those with different beliefs (whether that difference is major or minor), AND it soils the very faith the government is promoting by making it a tool of secular authority, regulated by political maneuvering and flawed men rather than one’s own spiritual journey. A faith mandated by the guys with guns and the keys to the jail is, of course, no faith at all.

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

This is the part which says that the government may not do anything to discourage, limit, or punish a particular religion or the concept of religion in general. Hopefully the problems with that sort of behavior are self-evident.

You may wonder where the famous ‘wall of separation between church and state’ comes in. As with so many things, we have Jefferson to either thank or blame for that phrase, depending on your point of view. Well, him and the Baptists.

In 1801, while Jefferson was President, he received a letter from the Danbury Baptists – yes, those Baptists. As in the folks with over 3x the membership of the next leading denomination in Oklahoma today. They had some concerns about religious freedom and what they saw as inadequate delineation between the secular and the spiritual:

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, {and} that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.

That’s right, kids – the Baptists were asserting that faith is between you and God while the government is simply supposed to keep you from killing one another or taking someone else’s stuff. That’s it – no getting involved in issues best left to the pulpit or the prayer closet.

But sir, our constitution of government is not specific… And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, {so} that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen.

These weren’t atheists arguing against the Ten Commandments or Muslims insisting on their right to pray to Allah instead of Jesus. These were Christians – Protestants, even – who were frustrated by their local government enabling and supporting some theological technicalities more than others.

That’s the logical and historical result when you have a religious people and a government of-the-by-the-for-the those same people. You’ve driven down the street and wondered how and why even the smallest community needs about 37 different churches? That’s the flip-side of religious freedom – where two or more or gathered, they’ll immediately begin arguing about the finer points of hermeneutics.

Unless government makes a substantial and ongoing effort to avoid such entanglements, those arguments naturally spill over into the secular realm.

It was Jefferson’s reply which gave expression to what has become the most common understanding of the First Amendment’s guarantees regarding matters of faith.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

There it is.

By itself, it’s just a phrase in a letter. But it’s a phrase in a letter which has been repeatedly referenced and validated in Supreme Court decisions and has become an entrenched and widely accepted interpretation of First Amendment protections through case law and sheer longevity.

In other words, it’s as close to belonging in the actual text of the Constitution as something can be without actually being in the text. For the record, it’s not alone in this – the Constitution never explains Federalism or defends Democracy, both of which are now considered inherent. The Framers despised Political Parties and what letting them get involved would do to the entire system – but for better or worse, they’re clearly a thing.

And until the North won the Civil War, Equality wasn’t even a goal, let alone a realization. I’m a big fan of small government and faithfulness to the Constitution, but let’s not go overboard. It’s an outline, not a mathematical model.

So “wall of separation” it is. It sounds so simple, and it is – on paper.

In practice, though… well, let’s just say it’s come up a time or two. And sometimes, the issue involves public education.

Which is what I do.

Next: A Wall of Separation – Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

RELATED POST: Should You Legislate the Bible?

RELATED POST: Missing the Old Testament

Liberty, Part One – The Causes Which Impel Them

June 1, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…

Hopefully this sounds vaguely familiar. It’s from the Declaration of Independence – history’s first and most famous combination break-up letter and birth certificate.

If you’ve had a longstanding relationship with someone – whether a lover, parent, spouse, or child – and that someone suddenly bails, you’re well within your rights to expect some sort of explanation. A midday text of “Not wrkng out – CU ltr… or not. Lev my stuff w/ Tori?” simply won’t do. T.J. and the Founders understood this, and explained their break-up in an ‘open letter’ to England and the world.

Your friends are all going to be asking what happened anyway, right? Might as well copy them on the text.

But it’s also a birth certificate in the sense that it describes and proclaims a new nation – a whole new KIND of nation, in fact. Lincoln will refer back to this Declaration in those terms fourscore and seven years later when he speaks of a nation ‘conceived in liberty’ and brought forth by fathers – in this case, ‘Founding’.

Then come the Big Three Rights. They’ll be expanded – or at least clarified – in a subsequent Constitution and its famous First Ten Amendments, but these are the foundation.

The phrasing was presumably borrowed (and modified) from John Locke, who wrote that governments have one job and one job only – the protection of property, defined specifically as life, liberty, and estate. Why T.J. and crew changed the phrasing is subject to discussion, but whatever their motivation, our lil’ nation wasn’t birthed by Locke (as far as we know – although we do have his nose… oh god, what if- ?!). Our legal birth certificate says Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – not ‘estate’. Everything else is commentary.

So… what do they mean?

That’s the catch. We generally agree on the phrases – Democrats and Republicans, Chicks and Dudes, a wide variety of colors, religions, professions, and educational attainments… we pretty much all love those words.

We just don’t agree on what they mean. So… wrinkle!

Crane Britton in Anatomy of a Revolution argued that when taking over an existing government, there’s no need for a new flag – just change what the flag means. No reason for an entirely new government – so long as existing officials are willing to ‘adapt’. The more extant anthems, slogans, and other nationalistic symbols and phrases you can keep, the better – as long as you effectively reshape what they stand for. What they MEAN.

T.J. and the Founders weren’t going for anything so sneaky; they were proclaiming their goals openly, if a bit poetically. But they did give us words and symbols around which to rally, and were then kind enough to establish before the proverbial ink was dry that the difficulty lie in how those words and symbols are defined. The next three decades were defined by arguments over what our Constitution and accompanying documents actually mean – or should mean, at least. Eventually we went to war with ourselves over it, so… here’s to clarity next time, gentlemen.

We hold these truths to be self-evident

This is either seriously profound or a rather evasive way to confess we’re not actually sure why we believe these things. I’m going to go with profound, because… Jefferson.

that all men are created equal

Pretty tricky to reconcile slavery and subsequent treatment of immigrants and Amerindians with this one, isn’t it? It’s one thing to limit ‘men’ to, well… MEN; it’s another to presume this grand claim of the equality was obviously only intended for Anglo-Saxons of a certain income level. A more accurate rendering of the Founders’ general mindset might have read, “far more men are created essentially equal than most of you thought, although let’s not get carried away and think that’s necessarily everyone, or even a majority.”

Imagine reciting THAT on Declaration Day every year in school.

But when given a choice between accuracy and rhetoric, T.J. often chose the latter. I have no doubt he was entirely sincere – like many of us, Jefferson was quite comfortable believing several contradictory things at once. “I think, therefore I am distorting reality to fit my own needs.”

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

The ‘Creator’ part is also vague enough to mean whatever the reader wished it to mean. Many read ‘God’ without even consciously considering alternatives, while those less dogmatic could easily assume a less specific life force – be it Clockmaker, First Causer, or Nature itself.

As to those ‘unalienable’ rights, well… that’s rather bold! ‘Unalienable’ suggests these rights exist even when they’re being violated, or denied. They exist the same even if we attempt to surrender them voluntarily. They exist even if we’re bad people.

Even after the whole ‘all men’ issue was clarified (thank you, 14th Amendment), this is probably the greatest gap between our rhetoric and our actual beliefs as evidenced by our history. And lest we feel all 21st Century superior to our forebears, read it again and then think ‘Guantanamo Bay’. See the problem?

But for now let’s move to those Big Three highlighted earlier.

that among these are

That’s smart. “We’re going to list three biggies here, but we’re not saying these are the only ones.” A similar clarification will be made in the 9th Amendment after detailing various rights in the first eight. It’s not so different from what we do when making school policies – after skirt length and no guns or drugs or sexual harassment usually comes something like “and pretty much anything else we decide gets in the way of what we’re trying to do here.” That way, when some kid comes up with something you simply didn’t anticipate – like, bringing his Komodo Dragon to school – you don’t have to find a specific rule against that in order to send him and his pet home.

Life

This one should be easy, right? And in some ways it is. It does get messy when we’re talking about anything involving a ‘right to die’ for the elderly or seriously damaged. Things get especially tricky when addressing reproduction – especially when it comes to ending existing pregnancies. Even the ‘do some heroin and have sex with your dog’ Libertarians are split over abortion, since this ‘right to life’ is so fundamental in the most original of American documents.

Very few of the folks chanting for choice are against ‘life’. It’s that definition thing again – what do we mean by ‘life’? When, exactly, does it begin – and what does that even mean? Who decides?

So maybe that first one isn’t so easy after all.

and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Yeah, yeah – I skipped one, I know. And I’m not sure what this one means, other than sounding much more positive than ‘estate’, or ‘stuff’. Perhaps it promotes the value of seeking personal fulfillment over simply meeting one’s obligations to community or country. Maybe ‘pursuit of happiness’ is drawn up in contrast to ‘serving one’s king.’ But I’m speculating.

Liberty

Liberty. Yeah… that one’s going to take a while.

40 Credits & A Mule, Part V: Maybe Radio

January 13, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

The original element of despotism is a MONOPOLY OF TALENT, which consigns the multitude to comparative ignorance, and secures the balance of knowledge on the side of the rich and the rulers.
If then the healthy existence of a free government be, as the committee believe, rooted in the WILL of the American people, it follows as a necessary consequence, of a government based upon that will, that this monopoly should be broken up, and that the means of equal knowledge, (the only security for equal liberty) should be rendered, by legal provision, the common property of all classes.
In a republic, the people constitute the government, and… frame the laws and create the institutions, that promote their happiness or produce their destruction… It appears, therefore, to the committee that there can be no real liberty without a wide diffusion of real intelligence; that the members of a republic, should all be alike instructed in the nature and character of their equal rights and duties, as human beings, and as citizens…
(Report of the Workingman’s Committee of Philadelphia On the State of Public Instruction in Pennsylvania, 1830)

These were white working men in the semi-industrialized north. They lived in an age of reform – the time of Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Dorothea Dix, and Horace Mann. It is unlikely that most owned land. Their ‘report’ echoes that of other labor organizations of the era – we need universal public education for our kids.

This was not a majority sentiment.

It’s dangerous to project backwards regarding motivations and intentions, but it seems that even when public education was barely a thing, they realized it would soon become essential if their sons were to flourish in the next generation. I don’t know if they were worried about ‘personal fulfillment’ stuff as well, but I’m an idealist, so… let’s assume maybe they did.

Their report demonstrates impressive cognizance regarding their target audiences. Rather than plead on behalf their offspring, they argue founding values, and the well-being of the republic to those in positions to change the system – to pass the laws, devote the resources, reshape the society. They don’t ask for opportunities, even democratic ones; rather, they promise better citizens. They reference aristocracy and oligarchy, anathema to ‘real Americans’ a generation after the Revolution, and lay out a simply path towards better functioning. It’s a great argument.

It’s also about a century ahead of its time. Education was starting to matter in 1830, at least in the North, but land was still the universal key.

And then a century passed.

In the 1930’s, everything changed. The Great Depression, of course, and the Dust Bowl – game changers for the nation and for the world. Something else was going on as well, though – an abrupt shift in land ownership and what it meant.

Once California belonged to Mexico and its land to Mexicans; and a horde of tattered feverish Americans poured in. And such was their hunger for land that they took the land… and they guarded with guns the land they had stolen. They put up houses and barns, they turned the earth and planted crops. And these things were possession, and possession was ownership.
The Mexicans… could not resist, because they wanted nothing in the world as frantically as the Americans wanted land.

Steinbeck was entirely capable of being racist by the standards of today, but I don’t think this was one of those times. His venom here is towards what we’d today call “the man,” and he’s mildly sympathetic towards Mexico’s loss. Keep in mind he was essentially a Socialist, which tends to happen to people who spend enough time among the disenfranchised.

Then, with time, the squatters were no longer squatters, but owners; and their children grew up and had children on the land. And the hunger was gone from them, the… tearing hunger for land, for water and earth and the good sky over it… They had these things so completely that they did not know about them any more… and crops were reckoned in dollars, and land was valued by principal plus interest, and crops were bought and sold before they were planted.

Jefferson would have peed himself. T.J. liked a good income, but he had a healthy sense of delusion regarding the holiness of agriculture as well. Remember Jesus turning over the tables of the money-changers in the temple?

Then crop failure, drought, and flood were no longer little deaths within life, but simple losses of money. And all their love was thinned with money, and all their fierceness dribbled away in interest until they were no longer farmers at all, but little shopkeepers of crops… Then those farmers who were not good shopkeepers lost their land to good shopkeepers. No matter how clever, how loving a man might be with earth and growing things, he could not survive if he were not a good shopkeeper. And as time went on, the business men had the farms, and the farms grew larger, but there were fewer of them…
And there were pitifully few farmers on the land any more…
(John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath – 1939)

Land didn’t work anymore.

It would still grow stuff – more effectively than ever, actually. But it wasn’t LAND (*cue majestic music*) in the way it had been land before. Jefferson’s agricultural ideal was all but extinguished, and the most sacred of pursuits – the one previously regarded as the best possible indication of a man’s capability, responsibility, moral potential, and stake in the prosperity of the nation – became just another business. It mattered, sure – but so did the weaving and the manufacturing and the shipping and the lawyering. It was no longer special.

This is not my anti-capitalism rant. I’ll leave that to Tom Joad and his spirit moving among the hungry children and such. I’m more or less a Libertarian, but the Libertarian Ideal in MY interpretation requires a capable citizenry with actual options and real opportunity. It’s fine to support free will and full consequences for our actions, but to believe this and sleep at night we need something akin to a ‘equitable starting position’ or the proverbial ‘level playing field’.

That’s not the same as waiting until you’re way, way ahead, and then suddenly cutting the ropes to the bridge. That’s not libertarianism, that’s just being a bastard. Not always a clear distinction, I realize, but an important one nonetheless.

But I digress.

Land was a big deal. It was readily available by some standards, and not at all available by others. It came to define more than your right to vote or otherwise participate – it blurred into individual worth and identity. It was taken from the Amerindians, who didn’t even buy into the system, and denied to Black Americans, who did. Eventually, it ceased to be what it had been – the key to opportunity, responsibility, capability… all the -ilities.

“Ma,” she said. Ma’s eyes lighted up and she drew her attention toward Rose of Sharon. Her eyes went over the tight, tired, plump face, and she smiled. “Ma,” the girl said, “when we get there, all you gonna pick fruit an’ kinda live in the country, ain’t you?”
Ma smiled a little satirically. “We ain’t there yet,” she said. “We don’t know what it’s like. We got to see.”
“Me an’ Connie don’t want to live in the country no more,” the girl said. “We got it all planned up what we gonna do… Connie gonna get a job in a store or maybe a fact’ry. An’ he’s gonna study at home, maybe radio, so he can git to be a expert an’ maybe later have his own store. An’ we’ll go to pitchers whenever… An’ after he studies at night, why – it’ll be nice, an’ he tore a page outa Western Love Stories, an’ he’s gonna send off for a course…”

Ma was right – no one knew what it was gonna be like. Rose was pregnant, so that’s literary, and Connie – ironically – wasn’t far off track in terms of how the future was going to work for those able to claim it. As in, NOT the Joads.

Right at the end of that conversation, the truck carrying them all to California breaks down. That Steinbeck and his symbolism – what a nut.

Education became the new land. There were hints in the early 19th century, and Connie Rivers had a glimpse of it, but it takes awhile to remake the core of a faith. Enlightenment ideals certainly should have anticipated this, but the New World had far more available soil than acres of free pedagogy, so…

Sometimes the beliefs shape the facts, sometimes the facts shape the beliefs. Land it was, then.

By the time of the Cold War, starting with the G.I. Bill, the rules had somehow changed. From there forward it’s all going to be about who shapes the learning. As Schoolhouse Rock so wisely intoned, “It’s great to learn, because Knowledge is Power.”

Exactly.

Related Post: 40 Credits & A Mule, Part I – This Land