There is strength in numbers

     There is strength in numbers.  There are more people who are opposed to open-carry, than people openly carrying their weapons.  There are more people who want reasonable gun control laws than people who want no restrictions on gun ownership.  There are more people who are not members of the National Rifle Association than people who are members.  There are even more members of the National Rifle Association who support gun control than members opposed to gun control.  There are more people who support the Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as ObamaCare, than people who do not support universal health care for all people.  There are more people who support social service programs that aid those most in need than people who do not support those programs.  And 98% of the population is a greater amount than 2% of the population.
     So why, if there is strength in numbers, are we still unable to even have a serious dialogue about the need for reasonable gun control laws?  Why are we still fighting about healthcare?  Why are social service programs that benefit the elderly, veterans and the poor, still the first to be slashed in budget talks?  Perhaps because the real strength in those numbers can only come when we stand together, speak together and vote together.  That is something we do not always do.  The question is, why haven't we?
     Well, the Koch brothers have invested so much money in advertising and sponsoring tea party candidates.  Okay, fair enough answer.  But the Koch brothers have only one vote each and there are, after all, only two of them.  Well, there are more wealthy people involved than just those two.  Yes, and still they are a small percentage of the voting public.  But we seem to have convinced ourselves that we just can't do anything about them.  We have bought in to the whole idea that money buys elections and there's nothing we can do.  We have forgotten that there is strength in numbers and we clearly outnumber them!
     What about the gerrymandering?  What about those protected districts?  Yes, what about that?  Gerrymandering is almost as old as the Constitution.  Based on the census, the redrawing of districts is done by the State legislatures and the party in power draws districts favorable to them.  Certainly gerrymandering has become a more critical issue as of late, but still not an impossible situation because there is still strength in numbers.
     The current makeup of the Congress, with the number of tea party members should serve as a prime example of strength in numbers.  The people who elected those men and women made sure they voted.  Conservatives, such as the Koch brothers and Ruprt Murdoch, count on the fact that there is a solid block of conservatives who vote in every election.  So they utilize  Fox News, right wing politicians, right wing talk show personalities and right wing ministers to keep the voting base ever ready and ever energized to do battle against the liberals who threaten their civil liberties and basic rights.  They misinform, either deliberately or because they themselves just do not know the facts, the truth or the fundamentals of early American history.  More important is that they count on the real majority simply choosing not to get out and vote in numbers that could and would make a difference.
     Why does that happen?  Why do we not use our strength in our numbers to make the changes we need to make?  Unfortunately, for many reasons.  Some people really don't think their vote matters.  Others think nothing will change even if they do vote because one party's just as bad as the other.  Whatever the reasons, when people choose not to vote, they, too, are demonstrating just how powerful strength in numbers is.  Their votes might have made a difference, might have helped to elect a candidate for change rather than a candidate wanting to turn back the hands of time.
     As always, our history is filled with those who wanted to be obstacles to change, who refused to grant equality to all, who stood in the way of progress and forward movement.  Still we have made the changes, taken steps, small sometimes, toward ensuring equality, and continue moving forward and making progress, even if it can barely be noticed at times.  How have we done this?  By people standing up, standing together and speaking out with their voices and their votes because they know there is strength in numbers.

Sarah Palin, slavery and the Engladers

     Sarah Palin posted on Facebook that Jesus was with George Washington and lead the Revolutionaries to victory during the war for independence.  This statement does not trouble me so much because there are those who believe that Jesus and/or God is on the side of the victorious.  President Abraham Lincoln, in his Second Inaugural Address, spoke of both sides praying for victory to the same God.  What concerns me much more deeply is that Sarah Palin, a woman chosen to be a vice-presidential candidate, either does not know or does not understand much about early American History.
     Sarah Palin, in her post, spoke about the fight against the "Englanders."  Ah, Sarah, they were actually referred to as British or English.  Perhaps a little petty on my part to point that out, but knowing and using proper terminology does lend some bit of credibility to the speaker/writer.
     If simply misstating the name of the group the Revolutionaries were fighting against was all Sarah Palin did, then I'd likely have simply let it go without so much as a brief comment.  But Sarah Palin had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt her lack of historical knowledge.  She said that if the colonists had been defeated, "it's possible we would all still be slaves to the England empire."   Sorry Sarah, but the colonists were not slaves in the British empire.  They were actually British citizens.  They chose to fight for freedom, not out of a fear of being enslaved or to free themselves from slavery, but because they believed their rights as citizens were being violated.  The decision did not come easy for them, and the Declaration of Independence states their case against the King of England and reasons for choosing independence.
     While many are focusing on Sarah Palin's praise and thanksgiving to God that Jesus led the colonists to victory, I am more dismayed at her factual inaccuracy than her religious beliefs about the victory.  I am not concerned about how many people share her beliefs about Divine Intervention, but I am am deeply worried about how many people believe her when she speaks or writes about history.

4th of July reflections

     As I walked to the grocery store yesterday (July 3), I saw two American Flags on all the telephone polls on the east side of the street.  I felt pride in my community for decorating the telephone polls, pride in the United States and pride in the American Flag.   I neither have a "my country right or wrong" nor a "my country never does wrong" sentiment.  Our history is filled with all the wrongs we have done and mistakes we have made both here and around the world.  Still, I believe there is much for which we can be proud.

     When the colonists declared their independence July 4, 1776, they were willing to risk their lives to pursue the ideal that all are created equal, entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  In 1787, a group of men met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and wrote a Constitution that created a new form of government: a democratic republic with three distinct branches of government with a system of checks and balances.

     President Abraham Lincoln chose to accept war rather than let the Southern States leave the Union because he believed that if those States left, if the United States could not sustain itself, then neither could the concept of "government of the people, by the people and for the people."  There are those, I know, who argue that we no longer have that and perhaps never really had that.  That we have always had government by the rich and for the rich.  That allegation goes all the way back to the debates during and after the writing and ratification of the Constitution.

     Our history is filled with examples of people who were not given the equality about which Thomas Jefferson wrote and for which Abraham Lincoln and so many others gave their lives.  So what possible reason could I have to be proud?

     In every case, despite the best efforts of narrow-minded citizens and politicians, people found ways to make progress, to move our country forward, inching ever closer to that ideal of equality for all.  Do we still have far to go?  Absolutely!  Are there still those who would rather destroy this country than allow progress?  Yes! But what has and will always make me proud of the United States is the people who refuse to let this country turn back to a mythical non-existent past.  The people who know that we must continue moving forward and making progress 238 years after we took that first step. 

Pieces of a conversation overheard

     I heard pieces of a conversation last Sunday among members of a group after their bible study.  They were in a public place, enjoying a meal and time together.  Those who did most of the talking are conservative, Christian, republican and over the age of fifty.
     The first part of the conversation I heard involved an evangelical preacher who had come from Cuba, Senator Ted Cruz's father.  The person echoed Pastor Cruz's words about all the evangelicals who did not vote.  Another person replied, "Well you get what you vote for."  I knew the person was referring to President Obama. As I walked away, I really wanted to turn around and say, "You are absolutely right!  That is why we have so many members of the Tea Party in office and the government is in such disarray because that's who people voted for!"
     The other part of the conversation I overheard had to with the level of intelligence of United States citizens.  One of the men said, in a rather superior tone, something about people having the mentality of a fifteen year old which created a problem when trying to deal with them.  Once again, I really wanted to say "You are correct, sir!  That is a problem because so many of the people you are talking about are in the Republican Party.  They get their facts and history lessons from Fox News and members of the Republican Party, particularly those who identify themselves with the Tea Party.  Unfortunately, Fox News is only interested is saying/reporting whatever will advance right wing conservative interests. The elected officials, sadly, either never paid attention to, have conveniently forgotten or simply to choose to make up history as it suits them!"
     But I never said a word.  I just walked away because that was not the time, place or people with whom to share my opinions.

We have not forgotten what you said, President Lincoln...

     On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.  He said, "[T]he world will little note nor long remember what we say here".  That, of course, is not true, the world still remembers what Abraham Lincoln said, most notably  "that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."  Perhaps we have forgotten why he spoke those words and why his words still speak to us today.
     President Lincoln spoke at the dedication of the cemetery in Gettysburg.  The country was in the midst of a long and bloody war between the northern and southern States that began thirty-nine days after President Lincoln's inauguration.  At Gettysburg, the President called on the citizens of the United States to rededicate themselves to ensuring that the government created by the Constitution would continue and the United States would remain undivided.
     Today, although we are not engaged in a bloody war, we are very much a country divided.  Some want us to return to a time when women had few rights.  Others want us to return to the days of the "wild west" when people walked around with holstered guns and/or carrying rifles.  There are also those who believe only white Christians should be allowed to vote and run the government on the local, state and federal levels.
     These groups all claim to be following in the footsteps of the Revolutionaries and Founders.  They are all wrong.  Those who fought the War for Independence did not do so to create a government of the few, by the few and for the few.  President Lincoln did not accept war and Union soldiers did not give their lives to preserve a government of the few, by the few and for the few.
     Now we must answer President Lincoln's call with our voices and our votes.  We must stand together, united in our belief and determined to protect and pass on to future generations a government that is truly of, by and for all people.

Flag Day June 14, 2014

     In a column published July 6, 1970 and then included in her book, I Lost Everything in the Post-Natal Depression, Erma Bombeck wrote about the American Flag.  She wrote because of something she had seen on television.  A group students and New York construction workers had an altercation and part of it involved the American flag.  The students referred to the American flag as the construction workers flag and symbol.  What struck Erma Bombeck most was the students did not think of the flag as their flag or symbol.
    As a parent, I guess I always thought respect for the flag was congenital. Is it possible I was so busy teaching the basics, I never took the time to teach “flag.”

     She included in her column a few well known quotes along with her own words about what she was saying to her children instead of teaching "flag".

“Oh say can you see by the dawn’s early light.…”

(Don’t slouch. Pick up your feet. Don’t talk with food in your mouth. Stop squinting. Turn that radio down. Get off the phone. Tie that shoestring before you trip on it.”)

     She then ended with these words:

Did I forget to tell them it was their flag they hoisted over Mount Suribachi? Their flag that flies over champions at the Olympics? Their flag that draped the coffin of John F. Kennedy? Their flag that was planted in the windless atmosphere of the moon? It’s pride. It’s love. It’s goose bumps. It’s tears. It’s determination. It’s a torch that is passed from one generation to another.

I defy you to look at it and tell me you feel nothing.

    I remember standing up in school, putting my hand over my heart and saying the Pledge of Allegiance while looking at the flag.  I remember watching a "floating flag" moving across the arena at a Florida Panthers hockey game.  I am always filled with  pride and respect at the sight of the American flag.  Pride because it symbolizes the best we can be, even when we forget.  Respect for all who fought in wars to gain our freedom, preserve our Union and protect our freedom. 

     What does the American Flag mean to you?

(The link is to the online text of Erma Bombeck's book.  Scroll down toward the end to read Flag)

about Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address

On March 4, 1865, Abraham Lincoln delivered his Second Inaugural Address.   Carl Sandburg, a Lincoln biographer, described the day as overcast and grey.  However, just before Lincoln began speaking, the sun burst through the clouds, but lasted only a moment.  Clouds quickly covered the rays of sunlight, once again returning the day to grayness.   Perhaps the cloudiness was fitting.  Lincoln's speech was somber.  He neither celebrated his victory in the presidential election, nor the North's impending victory over the South.

Rather, he called upon his audience and his still divided country to repent for the sins that had led to so much bloodshed and to find a way to "bind up the nation's wounds"  as compassionately as possible.  Perhaps it is also fitting that the sunshine lasted only for a few moments because this was to be Lincoln's last public statement and last great piece of writing.  Forty two days later, on April 16, 1865, Abraham Lincoln died, the victim of a deranged assassin.  The man who would be hailed as one of his country's greatest presidents and respected as one of his country's finest writers had put down his pen forever. 

Lincoln had grown up on the frontier, in a time and place where little, if any, emphasis was placed on "book learning".  His formal education amounted to approximately one year.  But lack of traditional schooling did not stem his desire to learn.  Lincoln read constantly.  He could quote passages from the Bible verbatim and would use either implied or direct quotes in many of his speeches.  He was also fond of Shakespeare's monologues.  However, it was his fascination and respect for words that would ultimately lead to his inclusion in Literature books.  Both the Bible and Shakespeare would provide a foundation in word usage upon which he would continually build and with which he would constantly experiment.  Although his grammar when speaking along with his manner of pronunciation reflected his frontier upbringing and he often seemed "backward" to many of the highly educated men of his time, even his most vocal detractors and critics could not deny his talent as a writer.

The Second Inaugural Address was the culmination of not only everything he had learned, but of everything he felt and believed.    The Second Inaugural Address was as Stephen B. Oates wrote in With Malice Toward None, his biography of Abraham Lincoln,  "a terse speech, succinct and lyrical" .  Although longer than the 272 words he spoke at Gettysburg, the Second Inaugural Address was still a relatively short speech, especially since the battle still raged even as he spoke.  He had no need to ramble on endlessly like many of the orators and politicians of his day.  He did, however, have a need and a desire to see his plan for Reconstruction succeed.

He knew the Radicals Republicans wanted the South to be punished harshly and severely, and that they were gaining power in the Congress.  He also understood that inflicting harsh punishments on the Southern States would only lead to more bitterness and animosity between the North and South.  He hoped to reach the people on both sides of the conflict, not just the Northerners, and gain their support for a more lenient reconciliation. 

Reaction to Lincoln's speech was somewhat subdued, as had been the case at Gettysburg.  Carl Sandburg noted in ABRAHAM LINCOLN THE PRAIRIE YEARS AND THE WAR YEARS  that "Lincoln . . . giving his own estimate of his address . . . expected it 'to wear as well as - perhaps better than - anything I have produced, but I believe it is not immediately popular'".  Perhaps his audience was expecting a speech calling for a harsh punishment of the Southern rebels.  Or words that celebrated the North's impending triumph over the troublesome South.  They certainly were not prepared to be called upon to accept responsibility for this terrible war. 

In the opening paragraph, Lincoln stated that there was no need for a lengthy speech, as had been the case at his first Inauguration.  Everyone already knew how the war was progressing, and that with each day, the North inched closer to victory.  Refusing to give in to over confidence, Lincoln said, "With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured".  That statement reflected Lincoln's sentiment towards the South.  He wanted his country to become whole again.  He tried not to look harshly upon the South or any members of the insurrection if he had any reason to look with kindness, gentleness or compassion.
 

The first paragraph reflected Lincoln's earlier, more analytical style of writing.  Devoid of any emotion, Lincoln's writings prior to the the 1850's reflected his realistic, rational way of thinking.  Like Jefferson, whom he admired greatly, Lincoln prescribed to the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment.  Emphasis was placed on resolving issues in a clear, reasonable manner.  Still, Theodore Blegen, in Abraham Lincoln A New Portrait ,  said that Lincoln "was a master of balance and had an ear for rhythm". 

The second paragraph, much like the first, offered widely known facts, recalling the beginnings of the war.  One side wanted to be allowed to leave the Union peacefully; the other side saw the Union as indivisible.  Lincoln wrote that while one side was "devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war".  Although no one wanted war, some according to Lincoln "would make war rather than let the nation survive; and others would accept war rather than let it perish".   However, in this paragraph he began to use the imagery that filled all his speeches.

He spoke of the Union as an entity, which could be saved or destroyed, and remained convinced throughout his tenure in the Oval office that the Union was not only perpetual, but worth preserving.  That a democratic form of government was not only viable, but the best form of government. Those who shared his views, who wanted to save the union, were willing to accept a war to protect what their ancestors had died to create.  Those who believed that the Union was nothing more than non-binding confederation, whom he did not view as enemies, but as instruments of a rebellion, were willing to fight a war to destroy what had been achieved in a previous bloody battle. 

The heart of the Second Inaugural Address was the third paragraph.  Here Lincoln meshed reason with spirituality in a way he had never done, nor for that matter, had any other statesman of his time.  As Earl Schenk Miers wrote in Abraham Lincoln A New Portrait , "it is difficult to find a speech by any modern statesman so intensely religious in feeling".  Here Lincoln departed from the thinking of Jefferson and other Deists. 

The opening lines of the third paragraph dealt with the issue of slavery.  An issue that Lincoln not only believed was morally wrong, but was a glaring contradiction in a country where all men were supposed to be created equal.  As long as slavery continued to exist, the United States could never achieve the true democracy its founding fathers envisioned.  However, to say that Lincoln believed in totally equality between the races would be erroneous.  He, like many of his contemporaries, believed that the African race was inferior.  But he also believed that everyone had the same right to be paid for work done. 

He admitted that slavery was, in fact, the cause of the war. That the desire to extend slavery and the desire to contain slavery had ripped the country apart.  But neither side was prepared for what happened.  No one expected such a long and bloody contest.  As Lincoln wrote, "each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding". 

Lincoln then painted a vivid picture of the similarities of the North and South by saying that "both read the same Bible, and pray to the same same God".  These similarities, this common ground, should have provided a basis for keeping the two sides together.  Yet, it didn't.  Ironically, both sides had used the same Bible and the same God to justify opposing points of view.  Also ironic, he pointed out, was that both sides asked God's help to secure a victory.  Both sides believed that their cause was "good" and the other's was "evil." 

The next example of Lincoln's powerful use of imagery is  the middle part of a sentence consisting of thirty six words in which Lincoln described the slave-owners as men who would "dare ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces".  God was presented as "just", as Someone who could never condone the institution of slavery.  The slave-owners "dared" to petition God for permission to continue committing a moral wrong.  The idea that they were "wringing", forcibly extracting their livelihood from another race's "sweat", would seem to have violated the Second Commandment, which instructs us to "love one another".



The last segment of the sentence mentioned in the previous paragraph, "but let us judge not that we will not be judged"  was the first of three quotes from the Bible.  Although Lincoln used an adaptation from Matthew 7:1, not a direct quote, the effectiveness and meaning were in no way diminished.  He reminded his audience, and in a much larger sense, all of mankind, of the dangers of passing judgment, of putting ourselves on the same level as God.  On a deeper level, those eleven words represented yet another plea for a lenient reconciliation between the North and South. 

Since both sides had opposing views, he noted that "the prayers of both could not be answered".  Therefore, according to Lincoln, God could not grant victory to both sides of the explosive issue.  He had to be either for or against slavery.  One side had to be right.  One side, with God's help should have emerged victorious.   That God did not seem to come to the aid of either side completely, and that the war had dragged on for four years led Lincoln to conclude that "the Almighty has His own purposes".  Perhaps the conflict went beyond a battle over whether the Union would be preserved or destroyed, whether democratic governments could survive or perish.  What, then, was the real meaning and purpose of war?  Why had it continued for so long?

Those were the questions Lincoln pondered on a daily basis.  Those were the questions that haunted him each time he was informed of the enormous amounts of casualties every day.  In his search for an answer, he turned to the one book with which he was most familiar, the Bible.  Lincoln  offered his listeners a direct quote, Matthew 18:7, as an explanation: "Woe unto the world because of offences! for if it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offences cometh!" 

Lincoln went on to add that perhaps the institution of slavery in America was one of those "offences" which, although morally and ethically wrong, had to happen.  But now, by God's  decision, not man's, had to be removed.  But it was not only the South who had committed a sin.  Lincoln, said Stephen B. Oates, had "come to view it [the war] finally as a divine punishment for the sin of slavery, as a terrible retribution visited by God on a guilty people, in the North as well South".   Lincoln asserted that the war was not, as many thought, a battle of good versus evil.  Neither side was good, because both sides were responsible for the sin that had been committed.  While the South had engaged in Slavery directly, the North, by allowing it to continue, was equally responsible.  Both sides had been willing participants in committing the offence; both sides would be held accountable.

The last sentence of the third paragraph, which consists of sixty eight words, contained both graphic imagery as well as the final quote from the Bible and addressed the possibility that,  although the nation prayed for a quick resolution to conflict, the war might have continued indefinitely.  Lincoln began by acknowledging that God's will, His purposes, were superior and took precedence over the will of any one man or group of people. This was yet another illustration that he had clearly departed from his previous Deistic beliefs.    He described the institution of Slavery as "the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil".  He theorized that God might have intended for all the wealth, all the material possessions, all which had been received through the sin of slavery to be destroyed.  If that was His will, then there was little anyone could do to prevent it from happening.



He added that perhaps the time had come to pay the price for the grave offense committed against the African race, and that God might have now decided that "every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn by the sword".  The idea of the blood shed through the inhumane treatment of the African race by the slave owners being paid for by the blood now shed during the Civil War further illustrated Lincoln's innate sense of balance when putting words together, and, Garry Wills noted in Lincoln at Gettysburg The Words That Remade America that unlike the Gettysburg Address, this time "war is made to pay history's dues". 

Lincoln ended the sentence with his last direct quote from the Bible, a verse from the nineteenth Psalm: "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether".  He never strayed from his belief that God was a just God, who did not act in a vengeful manner.  Rather, he surmised that God had allowed such a destructive and bloody war to not only happen, but continue because of man's inhumanity to man. 

The last paragraph of the Second Inaugural Address was simply one long sentence.  Yet it was, and still is, the single most important group of words in the speech.  Lincoln's hope for the future, and his plan for Reconstruction after the war ended were contained in this last paragraph. 

Against the call for a harsh plan for Reconstruction designed to break the will of the South, Lincoln urged not only the North, but the South as well, to move forward "with malice toward none; with charity for all".  For as long as the animosity continued, as long as there were voices shouting for severe measures against the South, then the lessons of the great war would have gone unlearned; the seeds of bitterness, which could have led to another conflict, might have been planted.  Lincoln cautioned his audience and his country against acting rashly, against putting their own desires above God's will.  Rather he reminded them of their humanness, of their humbleness, of their, and his need to depend on God for guidance in re-uniting the country.  Lincoln also talked about the need to show compassion to all who had been affected by the war.  Once again, subtly reiterating his call for a lenient Reconstruction. 

The final twenty words of the paragraph called not only to the country in 1865, but to us today "to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations".  Lincoln knew, all too well, the agony and pain associated with any war.  He, more than anyone else, had borne the burden of conflict on his shoulders, and felt the anguish deep with in his very being.  His plea to secure peace, to avoid another war, is as relevant at this moment as it was he spoke them.

Although Lincoln never considered himself a poet, no discussion about his prose is complete without mentioning its poetic qualities.  According to Richard Hanser in Lincoln and the Poets, there was a "recurrent strain of poetry in Abraham Lincoln".  If poetry is perceived, not as  merely, rhymed stanzas, but as metered, lyrical verses alive with imagery and driven by emotion, then Lincoln's contribution to the world of poetry can be neither overlooked nor over estimated.  His Second Inaugural Address has been called one of the finest examples of prose poetry.

The same reasons given in previous passages as to why this speech deserves to be counted among the best prose ever written easily prove why Lincoln's works are also discussed in poetic terms.  The imagery, the vividness of the words, the picture that is clearly painted, and the emotion combine to produce prose which goes beyond merely telling a story or stating a case.  The poetic quality of Lincoln's later writings enabled him to touch the hearts of his audiences, and stir their emotions in a way only true poets can. 

The true tests of any writing are whether it can endure long after the paper it was written on has faded and yellowed, and whether it can continue to stir the emotions.  Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address easily passes on both counts.  His words not only deserved to be studied in both history and literature classes, but should also be read and reread by anyone searching for answers to the present day conflicts and problems threatening to shatter the world.   As David Anderson wrote in his book, Abraham Lincoln , "in his final formal address, Lincoln achieved the heights of noble human emotion".   Lincoln talked about love, tolerance  and acceptance and spoke of man's inhumanity to man as being the true cause of the bloodiest war the history of the United States.  He understood that people, as a whole, must change and adopt a more compassionate view of one, and that through our differences we can find our similarities.  Lincoln is still speaking to us.  We need only listen, and we might be able to begin the process of healing the world's wounds