Voters get the ignorant elected officials they deserve

James Madison's Montpelier is hosting a workshop for educators about how to teach history and government better. NBC29 has the story:

Teachers across the nation this week are gathering at James Madison’s Montpelier inside the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution.

"We ask our students to be lifelong learners, and if we're not lifelong learners, then we're not uh fulfilling that on our own," said Jim Rossi; who teaches Social Studies in Maryland.

The James Madison Legacy Project allows teachers to dive into the history of U.S. government with special attention to the constitution.

Earlier this week, NBC29 had another story. This one featured a Charlottesville city councilor who could use some of the lessons taught at Montpelier.

In Kat Boardman's report on a City Council debate about gun laws, one city council member is quoted:

“The Constitution itself, in the body of the Constitution, talks about the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gun violence in this country has denied thousands and thousands of people those basic rights,” said Kristin Szakos, Charlottesville city councilor.

Imagine this: in the City of Charlottesville, in the shadow of Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, an elected government official talks about how the words "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are found "in the body of the Constitution."

Kristin Szakos

As my freshman English teacher at MUHS, Father Richard Forrey, S.J., would have berated an errant student: "Sorry! ZERO!"

The Constitution does not refer -- anywhere, in the body of the original document or in the amendments added since 1791 -- to "unalienable rights" or to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Those words appear in the Declaration of Independence, written by Charlottesville's own Thomas Jefferson.

For her ignorance of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, City Councilor Kristin Szakos needs to take a remedial course in American Government. And she ought to apologize to the community for so embarrassingly displaying her ignorance on local television and internationally on the Internet.

I mean, we'd expect something like this from Donald Trump -- but from an elected official who lives and works in Charlottesville?

Sometimes I think the voters get exactly what they deserve.

Gay Equality Protest at Independence Hall - July 4th, 1968

A year before the Stonewall riots sparked what's become known as the modern gay-rights movement, pioneering advocates for gay equality -- sorry, "LGBT equality" -- marched in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia.

The day these pioneers chose was the Fourth of July, knowing that tourists would be celebrating the Independence Day holiday at the site where the Declaration of Independence was drafted, debated, and adopted in 1776.  Their aim was to spread the word among middle Americans that in the phrase "all men are created equal," all means all.

One of the protesters for gay rights was Lilli Vincenz, who also brought along her own movie camera to record the event.  Could she have known that, 46 years later, we would be celebrating gay equality rather than begging for it?

The Library of Congress has preserved Vincenz's film about that picket line (which includes an interview with the late Franklin Kameny, a well-known agitator who coined the phrase, "Gay Is Good.").  Mike Mashon wrote on the Library's "Now See Hear!" blog on June 5:

The Library’s moving image collections are large (1.4 million film reels and videotapes with more arriving every day) and almost unimaginably diverse. We may not have every film or television show ever produced, but it’s a rare occurrence when Moving Image Research Center staff can’t help a patron find at least a little something related to their inquiry.

Every so often a precious jewel emerges from this mountain of content. I admit when I first heard that the Library was in the process of acquiring the collection of gay rights pioneer Lilli Vincenz I had no idea who she was. Not long before the official announcement, Dr. Vincenz’s representative Charles Francis—who was also instrumental in the Library’s acquisition of the Frank Kameny Papers in 2006—paid a visit to the Packard Campus and brought with him a copy of two of her films. The Second Largest Minority documents the “Reminder Day Picket” at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, on July 4, 1968, while Gay and Proud is about the first Christopher Street Liberation Day Parade held in New York City, June 28, 1970. We watched them together.

The films were revelatory.

Even apart from the subject matter, The Second Largest Minority is a tight little time capsule of life in the 1960s -- the clothes, the hairstyles, the manner with which people carried themselves.

Portions of this short, made by Lilli Vincenz on July 4, 1967, have been excerpted in other documentary films, such as Before Stonewall, but until recently only a few lucky people have seen the entire 7-minute record of this historic event.

Now you can see it, too:

Mashon continues:

The images are striking. First, there are the immaculately groomed, polite-but-persistent participants in the Philadelphia event. While a picket reading “Homosexuals Ask for Redress of Grievances” may not be the most soul-stirring call to arms, let’s also not forget the bravery of these pioneers, who faced much open hostility. Contrast this with the more defiantly celebratory attitude of the Christopher Street marchers just two years later. The Philadelphia pickets are still in evidence, but the operative word now is “pride.” It’s one thing to read about how the gay rights movement was catalyzed by the Stonewall Inn riots of June 1969, but quite another to see that tonal shift illustrated so vividly in these bookend films. Powerful movements can begin and be sustained in unlikely places, and how fortunate we are that Lilli Vincenz was there to record this one.

For my 2010 interview with Frank Kameny about the early days of the gay rights movement, see Part I here and Part II here. For his reminiscences of his military service in the Second World War and the movement to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," look here. For my look back at the Stonewall riots of 1969, check out these posts: "Four Decades After Stonewall" and "41 Years Ago Today, the Queers Fought Back." The 12-minute film, Gay and Proud, which documents the first "gay pride" parade in New York City in 1970, can also be viewed on the Library of Congress' "Now See Hear!" blog.

So You Think You Know the Declaration of Independence?

Try this quiz, courtesy of the Heartland Institute:

It's harder than it looks. I only scored 110.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 
See my articles on Examiner.com!

The Glorious Second of July

Writing from Philadelphia to his wife Abigail in Massachusetts on the third day of July, 1776, John Adams, a member of the Continental Congress, said:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

What's that he wrote? That "the Second Day of July" will be celebrated "as the great anniversary Festival"? Didn't he mean the "Fourth Day of July"?

Original resolution for American independence from July 2, 1776

True enough, the "succeeding Generations" that Adams foresaw have, since 1777, celebrated Independence Day as July 4th, which was the day that the Declaration of Independence (drafted by Charlottesville lawyer Thomas Jefferson) was approved by Congress. (It was not signed, contra the famous Trumbull painting and the Peter Stone-Sherman Edwards musical 1776, until August 2, almost as an afterthought.)

Adams's enthusiasm stemmed from the 12-0-1 vote (New York abstaining, "courteously") on July 2nd, approving a resolution proposed by another Virginian, Richard Henry Lee, which stated:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

The first sentence is echoed in the Declaration of Independence, which made the case for why Lee's resolution should have been passed in the first place. The second sentence was realized after the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, which proved to the French government that allying with the American rebels might pay off politically. The third sentence was brought to life by the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, drafted that same year but not ratified until 1781 (and superseded, seven years later, by the U.S. Constitution).

Adams understood the act of independence to have been performed on July 2, 1776. The rest was merely decoration.

And still, our "Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations" will occur on the Fourth of July (unless you're in Crozet, where festivities are scheduled for Saturday, July the 6th).

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 
See my articles on Examiner.com! 

Marking Independence Day with John Quincy Adams and Ronald Reagan

At the Reagan Library

Twenty-six years ago, during the twin celebrations of Independence Day and the re-dedication of the Statue of Liberty on the occasion of its centenary, President Ronald Reagan made a series of speeches about American history and American values.

On Saturday, July 5, 1986, in his pre-recorded weekly radio address, President Reagan mentioned two issues -- immigration and taxes -- that remain salient today (and one name that he probably could not have predicted would still be in the news nearly three decades later):

The immigrant story has been repeated millions of times, stories such as that of one man who passed through Ellis Island years ago. A 15-year-old Italian immigrant who spoke not a word of English. Little did he imagine that his son, Antonin Scalia, would be appointed to the highest court in the land, there to uphold and protect our Constitution, the guardian of all our freedoms. Just one of many stories that shows us that every time we swear in a new citizen, America is rededicating herself to the cause of human liberty.

In these last couple of weeks we have rededicated ourselves to liberty in other important ways, too. Recently, the Congress has passed two landmark pieces of legislation that I'm sure put a smile on the face of our Statue of Liberty. The first was our historic effort to reform our nation's tax code, to make it simpler and fairer, to bring tax rates down, and to give families a long-overdue break. Throughout human history, taxes have been one of the foremost ways that governments intrude on the rights of citizens. In fact, as we all learned in school, our democratic American Revolution began with a tax revolt. Our forefathers knew that if you bind up a man's economic life with taxes, tariffs, and regulations, you deprive him of some of his most basic civil rights. They have a wonderful phrase describing economic liberty in the Declaration of Independence. They call it "the pursuit of happiness." Well, with tax reform, we're going to make that pursuit a lot easier for all Americans.

The night before, speaking from the deck of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy in New York Harbor on Independence Day, Reagan remembered two of his predecessors:

All through our history, our Presidents and leaders have spoken of national unity and warned us that the real obstacle to moving forward the boundaries of freedom, the only permanent danger to the hope that is America, comes from within. It's easy enough to dismiss this as a kind of familiar exhortation. Yet the truth is that even two of our greatest Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, once learned this lesson late in life. They'd worked so closely together in Philadelphia for independence. But once that was gained and a government was formed, something called partisan politics began to get in the way. After a bitter and divisive campaign, Jefferson defeated Adams for the Presidency in 1800. And the night before Jefferson's inauguration, Adams slipped away to Boston, disappointed, brokenhearted, and bitter.

For years their estrangement lasted. But then when both had retired, Jefferson at 68 to Monticello and Adams at 76 to Quincy, they began through their letters to speak again to each other. Letters that discussed almost every conceivable subject: gardening, horseback riding, even sneezing as a cure for hiccups; but other subjects as well: the loss of loved ones, the mystery of grief and sorrow, the importance of religion, and of course the last thoughts, the final hopes of two old men, two great patriarchs, for the country that they had helped to found and loved so deeply. "It carries me back," Jefferson wrote about correspondence with his cosigner of the Declaration of Independence, "to the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right to self-government. Laboring always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us and yet passing harmless . . . we rowed through the storm with heart and hand . . . ." It was their last gift to us, this lesson in brotherhood, in tolerance for each other, this insight into America's strength as a nation. And when both died on the same day within hours of each other, that date was July 4th, 50 years exactly after that first gift to us, the Declaration of Independence.

My fellow Americans, it falls to us to keep faith with them and all the great Americans of our past. Believe me, if there's one impression I carry with me after the privilege of holding for 5-1/2 years the office held by Adams and Jefferson and Lincoln, it is this: that the things that unite us -- America's past of which we're so proud, our hopes and aspirations for the future of the world and this much-loved country -- these things far outweigh what little divides us. And so tonight we reaffirm that Jew and gentile, we are one nation under God; that black and white, we are one nation indivisible; that Republican and Democrat, we are all Americans. Tonight, with heart and hand, through whatever trial and travail, we pledge ourselves to each other and to the cause of human freedom, the cause that has given light to this land and hope to the world.

That last sentence echoed the words of another president, John Quincy Adams, who as Secretary of State had addressed the U.S. House of Representatives on July 4, 1821. (It's hard to believe today, but Congress in those days did not go home for a district work period to mark Independence Day with their constituents.)

The second President Adams took this opportunity to define America's role in the world in words that should be taken to heart today. The United States, he said,

has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

Then he added these admonitions and warnings:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

As we Americans celebrate our independence this week, we would do well to remember the words of Presidents Adams and Reagan.

(Cross-posted to Bearing Drift.)

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Slow Brew

It may be eleven days after the fact, but it is not too late to report on the Charlottesville Tea Party that took place on Independence Day in Jackson Park.

Organized by the Jefferson Area Tea Party group, under the leadership of Bill Hay and others, the Fourth of July gathering was a follow-up to the Tax Day Tea Parties that were held on April 15.

Protest on the Fourth of July has a long pedigree. University of Virginia historian Peter Onuf noted on a recent broadcast of BackStory - with the American History Guys, a radio program produced by the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities:

The Fourth of July became a really big deal in the 1790s when, believe it or not, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other so-called Republicans were mobilizing against the Federalist administrations of George Washington.

Later in the show,, contrasting the "civic celebrations" of the 1870s with their counterparts in the early part of the 19th century, Onuf explained:

Earlier Fourth of July celebrations tended to be very contentious… The idea of the Declaration and of Jefferson as its author was a partisan thing in the 1790s and early 1800s. That is, it was Jefferson against the Federalists, that is, the administration.

And then later in the party system that emerged in the 1830s and ‘40s, there were a lot of counterdemonstrations of Democrats and Whigs having alternative celebrations trying to win over popular favor, and so forth.

The Tea Party Movement, such as it is, is diffuse. Lacking a central organizer, local Tea Parties have popped up here and there, sometimes in synchronicity with other groups around the country (as happened on April 15) and sometimes on odd days and hours.

Reporting on the Fourth of July Tea Parties, veteran political correspondent Donald Lambro explained in the Washington Times early the next morning:

Whether the turnout would match or exceed the hundreds of April 15 Tea Party protests remained to be seen, though a survey of dozens of publicized events from Maine to California suggested the grass-roots movement had not lost its energy and support.

The April 15 demonstrations drew an estimated 600,000 people to more than 600 events throughout the country, organizers said. Since then, the movement has remained localized, resisting efforts to turn itself into a national organization, and spawning hundreds of local, citizen-led groups that shun professional politicians at their meetings and public events.

While little media attention has been paid to the movement since then and some have suggested that its numbers were eroding, Tea Party leaders who have been monitoring the groups and this weekend's activities dispute that.

"I don't think this movement's eroding," said Adam Bitely, director of new media at Americans for Limited Government.

"When the president's cap-and-trade energy bill came up in the House, a lot of the Tea Party groups were doing local work, calling members of Congress to urge them to vote against the bill," said Mr. Bitely, whose NetRight Nation Web site tracks Tea Party activities.

"Most of these people don't want to be connected to any one group. They are trying to run their own local political organizations and don't need one national organization to do that," he said.

One example of this autonomy was the demonstration at the office of U.S. Representative Tom Perriello two days before the July 4th holiday, which was called to protest Perriello's vote on the "cap and trade" energy bill.

Another example was when the Taxpayer Alliances of Chesapeake, Portsmouth and Virginia Beach jointly participated in a "Defend and Declare Tea Party" event on June 26 in the Chesapeake City Park.

Over 1,000 people participated in the Charlottesville Tea Party on the Fourth of July. Some participants got their knickers in a bunch because the Daily Progress and other mainstream media outlets failed to cover the event.

I can understand their disappointment, but it was a holiday, after all, and the local news media was probably short-staffed. The Daily Progress didn't cover Congressman Perriello's remarks that day at Monticello, either. (He was the guest speaker at the annual naturalization ceremony for new citizens. Last year's featured speaker was President George W. Bush.)

One local TV station, WCAV-TV, did cover the event, saying:

Saturday over one thousand people from the Jefferson Area Tea Party rallied in Charlottesville. The holiday gathering in Jackson Park is the latest effort by the group to send a message to leaders in Washington that tax dollars need to be spent more wisely. While the rally had political overtones, it was also a celebration designed for families.

The participants shared a common distaste for what's happening in Washington.

"We have a bunch of usurpers in government," said Charlottesville resident, Michael Del Rosso. "People that don't care about their oath of office. We need to organize to defeat them in the next election and we need to make them accountable every turn they take that is unconstitutional."

I was able to capture video highlights of the Jefferson Area Tea Party on Independence Day. Here are a few of them.

James Curtis of the Jefferson Area Libertarians (a regional branch of the Libertarian Party of Virginia) addressed general issues of individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility:

(Other Libertarian Party members spoke at a Tea Party in Roanoke on Independence Day.)

Jim Morgan (who previously was unfamiliar to me) spoke about the Fair Tax, which would rid us of the meddlesome IRS and replace the income tax with a national retail sales tax.

(Those unfamiliar with the Fair Tax concept can learn a lot about it by reading The Fair Tax Book, by Congressman John Linder and radio talk-show host Neal Boortz. There is also a sequel, in which Linder and Boortz answer their critics.)

Delegate Rob Bell (R-58) was one of two elected officials who spoke at the Tea Party. (Elected officials, as a class, are highly disdained by Tea Partiers.) He introduced the other elected official on the program, state Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R-37).

Senator Cuccinelli, who is also running for Virginia Attorney General, barely mentioned his campaign in his remarks, which focused largely on property rights:

This final video clip is somewhat out of (chronological) order. It's a random collection of scenes from the Jefferson Area Tea Party on July 4th, featuring some of the interstitial comments by compere Joe Thomas, talk show host on WCHV-AM in Charlottesville, who dressed up as Samuel Adams for the occasion. There is also an excerpt from local Arby's restaurant owner Tom Slonaker's reading of the entire Declaration of Independence.

There will be little rest for the Jefferson Area Tea Partiers. Not even two weeks after the Independence Day Tea Party, they plan another peaceable assembly to petition their government for the redress of grievances -- in this case, to express their opinions on health care legislation pending before Congress -- on July 17 (the same day and time as similar protest demonstrations around the country. As announced on the Jefferson Area Tea Party blog,

On Friday July 17th we will once again be meeting at Congressman Tom Perriello’s Charlottesville office at 313 2nd Street SE. We will gather at 4 PM to express to the Congressman our desire for him to vote against the Democrat sponsored Health Care Bill that will soon be coming to the House Floor....

We had a great turn out for the 4th and this is a good opportunity to keep up the momentum. I am contacting Mr. Perriello’s office to let them know that we will be there that afternoon and are requesting the Congressman’s presence. At the very least maybe we can get Mr. Perriello to promise to read this bill before voting on it.

This event will be a great way to promote our July 20th Health Care Forum. The public needs to be aware of how Nationalized Health Care will affect their lives. It is only through education that we are able to make the correct decisions in regard to voting for our representatives and understanding their stances on issues.

The Tea Parties deserve a lot of credit for mobilizing citizens to become more engaged in politics and policymaking. Our system of representative government relies on persistent participation by the people, not only in public protests (which admittedly can be fun and entertaining as well as substantive) but also through phone calls, faxes, and emails to our Representatives and Senators in Washington, as well as legislators in Richmond and other state capitals, and elected officials at the local level, too.




Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Worth a Reminder

I have mentioned this before, but it is worth remembering that today, June 12, is the anniversary of the adoption of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776.

The National Archives has an on-line exhibit of the Virginia Declaration of Rights that notes:

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.

It may be valuable, 233 years later, to post the full text here, as well, since many people are unfamiliar with Mason's handiwork, even though much of it continues to be a part of the Virginia state constitution:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

Remembrances of Independence Days Past - Part I

Today (July 4, 2008) will see President George W. Bush speaking at Monticello's Independence Day celebration. He is the fourth sitting president to do so, following Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936, Harry S Truman in 1947, and Gerald R. Ford in the Bicentennial Year of 1976.

Eight years ago, the principal speaker at the ceremony was, like Monticello's builder and first owner, a U.S. Secretary of State. At the swearing in of some six dozen new American citizens, Dr. Madeleine Albright spoke about her own experience as an immigrant to the United States and of the contributions foreign-born Americans have made to our culture and our communities.

I covered the event that year for the Metro Herald in Alexandria. It was my first time visiting Monticello on the Fourth of July and certainly not my last. (Last year I used the new citizen-journalist tool, YouTube, to post video of the event.)

This article appeared in the Metro Herald on July 7, 2000:

ON THE MOUNTAINTOP: A CELEBRATION OF CITIZENSHIP AND FREEDOM
Rick Sincere
Metro Herald Charlottesville Bureau Chief

Atop the “little mountain” he called by its Italian name, Monticello, Thomas Jefferson reflected on life and liberty, wrote thousands of letters, and received many visitors from Virginia and elsewhere.

As the epitaph on his gravestone, Mr. Jefferson chose to be remembered for only three things: that he was the father of the University of Virginia, the author of Virginia’s statute on religious liberty, and the author of the Declaration of Independence.

Mr. Jefferson died on the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, just after noon in the bedroom that was the center of his life in the home he built at Monticello.

Every year since 1963, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation – which owns and runs Monticello as a monument to the third president – has sponsored a ceremony on the anniversary of American independence and Mr. Jefferson’s death at which immigrants to the United States take the oath of citizenship, forsaking their foreign allegiances to become true Americans.

On July 4, 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was the keynote speaker at a ceremony on the West Lawn of Monticello. Nearly 80 adults from 27 foreign countries took the oath of citizenship, and nine children adopted into American families were given certificates of citizenship.

Secretary Albright, herself an immigrant (from Czechoslovakia) and a naturalized American citizen, welcomed her new compatriots in a brief but impassioned speech.

Speaking of her own arrival in New York Harbor at the age of 11, a refugee from Communist tyranny after previously fleeing Nazi occupation, Albright remembered her doubts and worries. But, she said, “I should not have been worried. At its best, America’s embrace is as vast as this continent is broad. We [her family] were welcomed, given refuge, and provided the chance to make new friends and build new lives in freedom.”

Addressing the concerns of those who fear the aliens among us, Albright reminded us that America is richer for its immigrants. Today, she said, “we see the contributions of immigrants everywhere in the vitality of our neighborhoods, the health of our economy, the strength of our democracy, and the enduring miracle of our unity.”

Gently scolding those xenophobes who would have prevented her and such eminences as Albert Einstein, Mother Frances Cabrini, and Andrew Grove from coming to America and helping to make it great, Albright noted: “There are some who resent all this and think that the day after they entered is the day the door to America should have swung shut. Let us pray that day never comes. For our nation needs the continued refreshment of new sources of energy and strength.”

It would have been impolite to fail to make note of the day’s host, Mr. Jefferson. So Secretary Albright paid tribute to him by saying that “the mind that conceived Monticello’s original design also helped to conceive an approach to government that had never truly been tried before. It was based on a conception of the individual not as a mere subject to the throne, but as a citizen with responsibilities and rights, and tracing all the powers of government back to the will and consent of the people.”

Those principles, Albright added, “fueled a revolution and launched America on its journey from wilderness to greatness – with important milestones of slavery’s abolition and the full enfranchisement of women and minorities along the way.”

Not content to make a speech and then return to her duties in Washington, Secretary Albright stood alongside the new Americans as they were sworn in by Samuel G. Wilson, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. She took the oath of citizenship with them and then greeted each one of them individually, shaking their hands and presenting them with the certificates proving their new nationality.

Also speaking at the ceremony were former Virginia Supreme Court Justice John Charles Thomas, who read the stirring opening section of Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”), and James H. Michael, Jr., the senior U.S. District Judge, who tried to explain, in a few words, how the day’s ceremony was not the end of a journey for the new citizens, but a beginning. Opening remarks were provided by Daniel P. Jordan, president of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, and the Foundation’s chairman, Benton S. Halsey. The ceremony closed with the Pledge of Allegiance led by local Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and the assembly sang the National Anthem, accompanied by the Charlottesville Municipal Band.

All photos by Rick Sincere.

(Special thanks to the Metro Herald's Greg Roscoe for digging up this piece from the newspaper's dusty archives.)

Constitutional Fact Check

Perhaps it is understandable, if not entirely excusable, when a historian makes a factual mistake in something he writes, when the mistake deals with more recent events than those he is describing.

But one would think that a prestigious newspaper like the Washington Post would have fact-checkers on staff to make sure that errors do not end up in print, especially on the heavily-visited op-ed page.

In a piece published Wednesday, "Three Cheers for July Second,"Andrew Trees -- who used to teach at a tony New York private academy, Horace Mann School, until a racy roman à clef called Academy X got him in hot water -- talks about the how John Adams predicted that our big national holiday would be celebrated on July 2, the day the Continental Congress voted for independence (two days before the Declaration of Independence was subsequently approved). Trees makes this suggestion:

I propose we make July 2 a national holiday to celebrate the Founders for some of their greatest but least appreciated attributes -- their mistakes.

Irony alert: Later in his article, Trees writes about the originally proposed amendments that led to the Bill of Rights:

The Bill of Rights as we know it also is not what was initially proposed. The original first two amendments, one of which concerned the number of constituents each member of Congress had and one regarding congressmen's salaries, were never ratified by the states. What we think of today as our First Amendment freedoms were actually third on the list.

"Never ratified by the states"? Um, perhaps the first one, but not the second.

What could have been the First (or Second) Amendment eventually became the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, ratified on May 7, 1992. It is the most recent amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the one that took the longest path from proposal to ratification. It reads, according to the National Archives:

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

Trees may have missed this development, focused as he was the "delicious, malicious stuff" (in Jonathan Yardley's words) recounted in Academy X. If he didn't learn about the 27th Amendment while writing his book, The Founding Fathers and the Politics of Character (could that require another irony alert?), then at least the Post's opinion pages staff should have caught the error.

Or maybe it's just one more mistake for us to celebrate on July 2.

Lamentation for Independence Day

The editorial board of the Jewish Daily Forward gets it exactly right in the June 26 issue, written in anticipation of Independence Day one week from now. Under the headline, "The Gift of Freedom," the Forward says:

Most of us seldom give much thought to the Fourth of July. It’s one of the most important holidays on our national calendar, one of the very few that is observed simultaneously by all Americans without regard to faith, origin or regional whim. It is, some say, the only holiday specifically dedicated to celebrating this nation. For all that, we mostly celebrate with barbecues or trips to the beach. If we seek some holiday spirit, we might watch a parade or catch some fireworks. A few of us might even get to thinking — some joyfully, others with mixed feelings — about patriotism, the flag or our soldiers overseas.

Ever since I moved to Charlottesville (with, I think, one exception), I have spent the morning of the Fourth of July on top of Mr. Jefferson's Little Mountain to celebrate Independence Day with new citizens as they take their oath of naturalization at the able hands of judges from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Over the years the speakers have included Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (in 2000; photo at left), author Frank McCourt, newspaper publisher Al Neuharth, artists Christo and Jeanne-Claude, and actor Sam Waterston (in 2007, photo below) (I've been hoping that late-night talk show host Craig Ferguson will be invited soon; he became an American citizen in February and talked about the process on his show -- his pride in being an AmCit is palpable.)

I've been lucky in that some years I've gone as "press" (even before I was blogging) and usually had a great seat in the media corral. Consequently, I've got some terrific pictures and (last year, for the first time) video. In addition, Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville take turns, year by year, in setting up a voter registration table to grab the new citizens before it's too late.

I won't be going up the mountain this year, however, because although it was earlier announced that the speaker would be documentary filmmaker Ken Burns, today the word went out that Burns has been bumped by Bush -- President George W. Bush, that is.

It's not that I have any objection in principle to the president speaking. Under other circumstances, it could be interesting. But his presence is going to cause inconvenience of major proportions. What has been a rather informal, local event -- the Charlottesville Municipal Band plays patriotic tunes, local Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts lead the Pledge of Allegiance -- will be turned into a circus.

Normally, anyone can attend the naturalization ceremony. It requires no ticket, no entry fee. People are free to wander the grounds. (The ceremony ends just before noon, so that those who wish to do so can walk down to Mr. Jefferson's gravesite to observe a family service commemorating the anniversary of his death.)

None of that will be true this year. Security will be at a premium. People will be searched, prodded, and scrutinized for their political opinions. It won't be fun, entertaining, or informative -- just a hassle.

It's not just the metal detectors and body cavity searches that concern me. When President Bush comes to a public event, those who disagree with him are discouraged from attending -- sometimes even prevented from attending by force. What will happen if someone shows up with t-shirts indicating support for Barack Obama or Ron Paul? Or t-shirts with slogans like "The Constitution Means What It Says," "Stop the War!," or "What Part of 'Limited Government' Don't You Understand?"? (Placards and signs of any sort will, of course, be forbidden, though t-shirts can be hidden under other garments and displayed at the right moment.) Will Albemarle County police be on hand to arrest people for exercising their First Amendment rights?

This won't be the first time a sitting U.S. President has spoken at Monticello on July 4th. In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford was the featured speaker. Unlike our current president, Ford was modest in his approach to the office. (Churchill might have said he "has a lot to be modest about," but he would have been incorrect.)

Ford inherited the White House from another president who, like Bush, failed to understand that the Constitution provides for three co-equal branches of government. Like Bush, Richard Nixon tried to expand the powers of the presidency with utter disregard for Congress and the Courts. Like Bush, Nixon was paranoid and rigid, with little understanding for free markets or individual liberty. Nixon famously compiled an "enemies list" of those who disagreed with him on policy issues.

Ford, in contrast, understood that Congress and the Courts also had a role to play in the making of public policy. He rejected the "imperial presidency" model, although his chief of staff (later vice president) Dick Cheney took away from the Ford White House a festering theory of the "unified presidency," which manifests itself in such things as "signing statements" in which the President, rather than vetoing a bill as provided by the Constitution, signs it but explains what parts he feels the Executive Branch can disobey. (Ford vetoed more bills in a month than Bush has vetoed in the entire eight years of his presidency.)

One of the traditions at the Monticello Independence Day celebration is for the Clerk of the Circuit Court to read the preamble to the Declaration of Independence (the part that begins, "When in the course of human events ...")

Wouldn't it be delicious if this year, in addition to the preamble, he could also read the bill of indictment that makes up the core of the Declaration? For those unfamiliar with it, here are a few lines of reminder:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good...

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only...

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:...

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:...

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:...

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation...

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people....

While I would love to see the expression on George Bush's face as that text is being read out, I still prefer to spend my Fourth of July without being wanded by a security guard. So I expect I'll be as far from Monticello this year as possible. I may even head up to D.C. for the Smithsonian Folk Life Festival and the fireworks on the National Mall.

Leave it to this White House to ruin the Fourth of July.

Update, Monday, June 30: Monticello has announced that there will be a limited number of tickets available to the ceremony on July 4. Only one thousand free tickets will be distributed beginning at 7:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 2. I wonder whether the friends and family members of the new citizens will be required to get those tickets, or if they have another means to attend the ceremony.

July 4th Report from Monticello

Today, being the Fourth of July, was marked at the home of Thomas Jefferson with Monticello's 45th annual Independence Day Celebration and Naturalization Ceremony. Some 75 new American citizens, who came here from around the world, took the oath of citizenship from Judge James P. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

It is customary for Monticello to host a distinguished speaker at these events. Previous speakers have included Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, author Frank McCourt, publisher Al Neuharth, and artists Christo and Jean-Claude. This year's speaker was an assistant district attorney from New York City -- or, more accurately, the actor who plays that attorney on TV, Oscar- and Emmy-nominee Sam Waterston, whose Scottish-born father was an immigrant to the United States.

I have pieced together some video excerpts from today's festivities. I reserve the right to replace these videos when I have a chance to do a better editing job.

In this 10-minute clip, the Charlottesville Municipal Band plays a march, John Charles Thomas reads the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, and Sam Waterston delivers some pointed remarks. (I have reduced Waterston's 22-minute speech to about 7 minutes. The full address may become available at the Monticello web site.)

The oath of citizenship was administered by Judge James P. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Certificates of citizenship were presented and new citizens were congratulated personally by Judge Jones and Mr. Waterston.

After all the new citizens had collected their naturalization certificates, Judge Jones opened the floor to comments. Two newly naturalized Americans rose to the occasion. Here is one of them, Ehonam Miheaye Agbati, an emigrant from Togo.

To close the ceremony, former Charlottesville Mayor Francis Fife, a veteran of World War II, led the new citizens and other Americans in the Pledge of Allegiance. A color guard from the Junior Air Force ROTC unit at Monticello High School in Albemarle County presented the U.S. and Virginia flags.

Happy Independence Day!

History as Drama: Keegan Theatre's '1776'

I'm playing a bit of catch-up now. Here is my review of Keegan Theatre's 1776, now in production at the Church Street Theatre in Washington:

History as Drama:
Keegan Theatre’s ‘1776’
Rick Sincere
Metro Herald Entertainment Editor

Early in his best-selling book about the pivotal year of the American Revolution, 1776, historian David McCullough writes:

It was [the legislature] as theater, and gripping, even if the outcome, like much of theater, was understood all along. For importantly it was also well understood, and deeply felt, that the historic chamber was again the setting for history, that issues of the utmost consequence, truly the fate of nations, were at stake.

McCullough was referring, not (as one might think) to the Continental Congress’ deliberations about the Declaration of Independence, but of the British Parliament’s reaction to King George III’s first major report on the rebellion in the colonies, months before the patriots/traitors in Philadelphia declared that “these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states …”

Reflecting retrospectively on historical events, most of us assume that they were inevitable. What we often forget is that the people living through those events had no sense of inevitability. For them – like for us living today – the future was uncertain, however hopeful and optimistic they permitted themselves to be.

Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards’ 1969 musical play, 1776, now in a new Keegan Theatre production at the Church Street Theatre near Dupont Circle in Washington, has that sense of uncertainty at its core. Although we know, 230 years on, the outcome of the debates, discussions, and deliberations through that hot Philadelphia summer, the drama of the situation – Congress as theater, as it were – grips us through two hours, making us want to find out just how this conflict will find satisfactory resolution.

1776 is an odd musical. Its structure is unique in musical theatre; it begins with a 10-minute musical scene that relaxes into a long, 30-minute sequence without music that can stand on its own as a one-act play. Its cast includes 23 men and only two women. A major character appears near the beginning, sings a rousing number, and then disappears for the rest of the play. The central character is, by his own admission and with the musical agreement of others on stage, “obnoxious and disliked.”

On paper, 1776 looks like a sure failure. Yet what doesn’t work in theory works marvelously in practice. In concept, 1776 looks like a bore. On stage, 1776 is lively, intelligent, and scintillating.

This is particularly true under the brilliant direction of Keegan Theatre’s Mark Rhea, who understands the potential pitfalls and shortcomings of 1776 and turns them into assets.

He starts by taking advantage of the full surface of the stage in the narrow and cozy Church Street Theatre. 1776 uses the deepest parts of the Church Street stage; in fact, having seen several productions there in the past, I was never aware that there was so much space available until now.

The spatial depth permits Rhea to arrange and rearrange his cast into tableaux that frame the action. It also allows him to assign each of the supporting actors a personal space that helps define his character – something already supported by Stone’s book and Edwards’ lyrics, which extract from a historical mass individuated personalities of the 20 Founding Fathers portrayed.

1776 was not written with hit songs in mind. There’s not a lot of hummability in the score, aside from Martha Jefferson’s “He Plays the Violin” and the ballad “Mama Look Sharp,” neither of which are essential to advance the action. Most of the score is closer to recitative, designed to establish character, express philosophical (!) points of view, and move the plot forward.

Because of this, the prerecorded, synthesized musical accompaniment (an “innovation” that caused me to wince at a community-theatre production of Camelot a few weeks ago) was barely noticeable and hardly objectionable, especially since the singing (so to speak) took center stage.

A successful production of 1776 rises or falls on the performances of its principals, and in Keegan’s case, it rises. Mick Tinder’s John Adams -- who is, as noted, “obnoxious and disliked” by his fellow statesmen – is solid, focused, stubborn, and discerning. Robert Leembruggen’s Benjamin Franklin is impish, flirtatious, and aware of his own celebrity. James Finley seems a bit wet-behind-the-ears as Jefferson, but then again, so was Jefferson.

Even for Americans who think they know the story of the Declaration of Independence, few are aware of the opposition to it. (It is widely thought that, during the Revolutionary War, one-third of Americans supported independence, one-third were loyal to the Crown, and one-third were indifferent.) Personifying this opposition in 1776 is the character of John Dickinson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, here played by Kevin Adams. Adams nails the part. His Dickinson is erudite, determined, and plainspoken.

One casting error may be found in Edward Rutledge, who was the youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence (at just 26). The Rutledge of 1776 has the closest thing to an eleven o’clock number (“Molasses to Rum to Slaves”) when, as a delegate from South Carolina, he objects to the condemnation of slavery in Jefferson’s draft declaration. Rutledge’s objection looks to be an impassable hurdle until Adams agrees to a compromise. The casting problem is that Dave Jourdan – as good as he is in the role – is at least 20 years older than the historical Rutledge would have been.

That aside, there are so many good performances in 1776 that it seems unfair to single out just a few.

Perhaps it was just fortuosity, perhaps advance planning, but Keegan Theatre’s 1776 closes its run on the Fourth of July. I can’t imagine a better way to celebrate Independence Day – or the days leading up to it – than by strolling over to the Church Street Theatre to see the show.

1776, by Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards, continues through July 4 at the Church Street Theatre, Thurday-Saturday at 8:00 p.m.; Sunday matinee at 2:00 p.m.; added performance Saturday, June 23 at 2:00 p.m.; no performance Sunday, June 24; Special 4th Celebration Performance Wednesday, July 4, at 2:00 p.m. Ticket prices: $30 general admission, $25 students (with ID) and seniors (60+). To reserve tickets: call 703-892-0202, ext 2 or email to boxoffice@keegantheatre.com.