Two weeks ago, observing Black History Month, I posted this entry in which I mentioned two books on the history of race in America that I thought were essential reading for anyone who wants to be well informed on the topic. It dawned on me this morning that I should have made it a trifecta; there is a third volume that deserves mention along with Simple Justice and The Strange Career of Jim Crow.
David Brion Davis is one of the leading scholars on slavery, and his 2006 book Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World is a captivating--but necessarily grim--account of the horrors resulting from the bizarre and wicked notion that one man could own another. I recently had occasion to refer to his descriptions of slave ships crossing the Atlantic; here's a piece of it:
"In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries... The density of packing slaves in the decks between a ship's bottom hold and main deck far exceeded the crowding of indentured servants or even Irish prisoners shipped to the British Caribbean. The males, especially, had to lie like spoons locked together, with no real standing room above them, surrounded by urine and feces, with little air to breathe. One would need to turn to the suffering of slaves in ancient Greek silver mines or to the victims of Nazi death camps to find worse of roughly equivalent examples...
"Matters hardly improved in the nineteenth century. The illegal slave ships captured by the British between 1839 and 1852 had an average of four square feet for each slave, compared with the twelve square feet required by British law for contemporary North Atlantic immigrant ships--the same space, roughly, given to modern economy fare passengers on a Boeing 747. As David Eltis puts it 'the occupant of the typical slave ship could neither lie full length nor stand upright for five weeks except for the limited time spent above deck each day.'" (pp. 91-92)
David Eltis is, of course, another scholar on slavery. Inhuman Bondage also includes a chapter on the Amistad; he calls the Steven Spielberg film on this maritime uprising "somewhat inaccurate but powerful," p. 12. There are two thorough chapters on the particular nature of slavery in the American South, a section on slave revolts, and chapters on the abolitionist movements in both Britain and in the United States. After reading this book, you'll come away horrified that slavery was ever allowed to happen among civilized people, and you'll probably have a lot of respect for the folks who stood up while slavery was practiced and said "no more."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Yankee, Dixie, and Junior
I was born and raised in Chicago, but I've lived south of the Mason-Dixon Line since I was twenty-one. Even growing up on the shores of Lake Michigan, I wasn't far removed from the South on my mother's side; her mom was from Georgia and her father hailed from Alabama.
Largely because of this aspect of my life, I'm quite fascinated with comparisons and contrasts between North and South. Currently I'm reading The White House Looks South by William E. Leuchtenburg, a study of the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson and how they shaped--and were shaped by--what went on in Dixie. It's a remarkable book and I'm learning a lot. One quibble: when I'm reading a nonfiction book, I tend to peek at the final page before I've finished the volume. As such, I was stunned by the last sentence of the text: "In sum, the South in the twenty-first century--indeed the South on Lyndon Johnson's final day in office in 1973--is a very different place from the South Franklin Roosevelt found when he got off the train in a rundown Georgia village in 1923" (p. 418). How on earth did the wrong ending date for LBJ's presidency make it past the editor? The Texan left the White House in 1969, not 1973, which in fact is the year he died.
For me, a fun understanding of the contrast between North and South comes when I drive home from work. The only pleasure of a PM commute in Atlanta is listening to Buck and Kincade on 680 The Fan, a local sports talk radio station. John Kincade, born and raised in Philadelphia, is like me, a northern transplant. Buck Belue, on the other hand, is from Valdosta, Georgia, and is well known in these parts for quarterbacking the University of Georgia in their 1980 national championship season. The difference in their backgrounds, and their acknowledgment of it, makes their program quite entertaining.
In his 1867 book The English Constitution, Victorian economist Walter Bagehot argued that one reason the British government worked so well was it had a dignified part (the Crown) and an efficient part (the Parliament). When I first read that, I was struck that this seems to sum up the difference in our country between northern people and southern folks. We Yankees tend to be all about efficiency; Southerners seem more prone to embrace dignity. I see that a lot in Buck and Kincade; Buck has that charming southern ability to seem prim and proper without appearing stuffy, while Kincade is so efficient he actually counts every program the pair have done together and at least once an afternoon mentions what number show it is! (They recently celebrated their two thousandth session together.)
This past Monday, I had a North-South epiphany not just because of Buck and Kincade themselves, but also because of the subject they addressed on their program. They were discussing the Daytona 500, run the day before. Kincade criticized Dale Earnhardt, Jr., pointing out that in the past five years he has won only three races, none of them big NASCAR events, but that in spite of this the younger Earnhardt continues to get tons of endorsement deals and is talked about more often than far more successful racers. Buck defended Junior, as did a few of the callers. One man with a pronounced southern accent admonished Kincade by saying that criticizing Junior was just something you don't do in the South, although a few other callers with an equal amount of y'all in their diction contested this and agreed with the Yankee half of the hosting team.
In fairness, it should be mentioned that Junior did win the big race at Daytona in 2004, but nobody really had a good answer for Kincade's assertion that Junior has underachieved since then. And it was then that it struck me: Dale Earnhardt Junior is to NASCAR what the Cubs are to baseball. Or to look at it geographically, the Cubs are to Chicago what Junior is to Charlotte. On the north side of Chicago, where I grew up, people love the Cubbies and often become quite indignant if anyone--especially out of towners or worse, south siders--mocks the team over it's lack of significant achievement. Yet it's there with the Cubs and Junior, isn't it--that sinking feeling their fans get that there's no World Series trophy or significant checkered flag ahead.
Maybe Walter Bagehot was right about what a government needs to be successful. But go to Wrigley Field, or cheer for Junior, and you come to the inevitable conclusion that so often in sports, it's not a matter of dignity and efficiency. What you experience is hope followed by heartache.
Largely because of this aspect of my life, I'm quite fascinated with comparisons and contrasts between North and South. Currently I'm reading The White House Looks South by William E. Leuchtenburg, a study of the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson and how they shaped--and were shaped by--what went on in Dixie. It's a remarkable book and I'm learning a lot. One quibble: when I'm reading a nonfiction book, I tend to peek at the final page before I've finished the volume. As such, I was stunned by the last sentence of the text: "In sum, the South in the twenty-first century--indeed the South on Lyndon Johnson's final day in office in 1973--is a very different place from the South Franklin Roosevelt found when he got off the train in a rundown Georgia village in 1923" (p. 418). How on earth did the wrong ending date for LBJ's presidency make it past the editor? The Texan left the White House in 1969, not 1973, which in fact is the year he died.
For me, a fun understanding of the contrast between North and South comes when I drive home from work. The only pleasure of a PM commute in Atlanta is listening to Buck and Kincade on 680 The Fan, a local sports talk radio station. John Kincade, born and raised in Philadelphia, is like me, a northern transplant. Buck Belue, on the other hand, is from Valdosta, Georgia, and is well known in these parts for quarterbacking the University of Georgia in their 1980 national championship season. The difference in their backgrounds, and their acknowledgment of it, makes their program quite entertaining.
In his 1867 book The English Constitution, Victorian economist Walter Bagehot argued that one reason the British government worked so well was it had a dignified part (the Crown) and an efficient part (the Parliament). When I first read that, I was struck that this seems to sum up the difference in our country between northern people and southern folks. We Yankees tend to be all about efficiency; Southerners seem more prone to embrace dignity. I see that a lot in Buck and Kincade; Buck has that charming southern ability to seem prim and proper without appearing stuffy, while Kincade is so efficient he actually counts every program the pair have done together and at least once an afternoon mentions what number show it is! (They recently celebrated their two thousandth session together.)
This past Monday, I had a North-South epiphany not just because of Buck and Kincade themselves, but also because of the subject they addressed on their program. They were discussing the Daytona 500, run the day before. Kincade criticized Dale Earnhardt, Jr., pointing out that in the past five years he has won only three races, none of them big NASCAR events, but that in spite of this the younger Earnhardt continues to get tons of endorsement deals and is talked about more often than far more successful racers. Buck defended Junior, as did a few of the callers. One man with a pronounced southern accent admonished Kincade by saying that criticizing Junior was just something you don't do in the South, although a few other callers with an equal amount of y'all in their diction contested this and agreed with the Yankee half of the hosting team.
In fairness, it should be mentioned that Junior did win the big race at Daytona in 2004, but nobody really had a good answer for Kincade's assertion that Junior has underachieved since then. And it was then that it struck me: Dale Earnhardt Junior is to NASCAR what the Cubs are to baseball. Or to look at it geographically, the Cubs are to Chicago what Junior is to Charlotte. On the north side of Chicago, where I grew up, people love the Cubbies and often become quite indignant if anyone--especially out of towners or worse, south siders--mocks the team over it's lack of significant achievement. Yet it's there with the Cubs and Junior, isn't it--that sinking feeling their fans get that there's no World Series trophy or significant checkered flag ahead.
Maybe Walter Bagehot was right about what a government needs to be successful. But go to Wrigley Field, or cheer for Junior, and you come to the inevitable conclusion that so often in sports, it's not a matter of dignity and efficiency. What you experience is hope followed by heartache.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Bust up over Churchill bust
They're a bit perplexed in Britain why President Obama has decided to give back a bust of Winston Churchill on loan to the United States:
"A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
"The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
"But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: 'Thanks, but no thanks.'"
The Telegraph article goes on to speculate why the President doesn't want to keep the artwork:
"Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather."
Well hey, as long as we're guessing that the reason for the decision has to do with kinship, we've got to ask the obvious question if maybe Obama's not so keen on Churchill because the acclaimed British Prime Minister is related to George W. Bush.
You didn't know Bush is related to Churchill? It came as a surprise to Churchill's grandson, Winston S. Churchill, as well. He edited The Great Republic: A History of America, a collection of his grandfather's notable writings about the United States. In the preface to the volume, the younger Churchill writes that as a result of his genealogical research:
"(I) was fascinated to discover that Winston Churchill, at ten generations removed, had not one, but three, ancestors who sailed on the Mayflower and who were among the mere fifty who survived the rigours of that first winter on the inhospitable shores of New England... I was further intrigued to learn that, through them, we are linked to no fewer than three Presidents of the United States--Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Bush..." (p. xi).
The Great Republic was first published in 1999. The next year, George Bush's son was elected President, so that makes George W. a fourth chief executive related to the Churchills.
Of course, I'm not accusing President Obama of consciously shunning Churchill because of his shared lineage with Bush; I'm just sharing a point the Telegraph might have made once they chose to bring family into it.
On the other hand, maybe a bit more research would show that Obama and Bush are related too. Wouldn't that be something having them show up at the same family reunion. Obama would be the control freak who insists everyone wear an ugly bright yellow tee shirt; Bush would be the wacky cousin who after loading up on hot dogs and baked beans asks every child present to pull his finger.
"A bust of the former prime minister once voted the greatest Briton in history, which was loaned to George W Bush from the Government's art collection after the September 11 attacks, has now been formally handed back.
"The bronze by Sir Jacob Epstein, worth hundreds of thousands of pounds if it were ever sold on the open market, enjoyed pride of place in the Oval Office during President Bush's tenure.
"But when British officials offered to let Mr Obama to hang onto the bust for a further four years, the White House said: 'Thanks, but no thanks.'"
The Telegraph article goes on to speculate why the President doesn't want to keep the artwork:
"Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather."
Well hey, as long as we're guessing that the reason for the decision has to do with kinship, we've got to ask the obvious question if maybe Obama's not so keen on Churchill because the acclaimed British Prime Minister is related to George W. Bush.
You didn't know Bush is related to Churchill? It came as a surprise to Churchill's grandson, Winston S. Churchill, as well. He edited The Great Republic: A History of America, a collection of his grandfather's notable writings about the United States. In the preface to the volume, the younger Churchill writes that as a result of his genealogical research:
"(I) was fascinated to discover that Winston Churchill, at ten generations removed, had not one, but three, ancestors who sailed on the Mayflower and who were among the mere fifty who survived the rigours of that first winter on the inhospitable shores of New England... I was further intrigued to learn that, through them, we are linked to no fewer than three Presidents of the United States--Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Bush..." (p. xi).
The Great Republic was first published in 1999. The next year, George Bush's son was elected President, so that makes George W. a fourth chief executive related to the Churchills.
Of course, I'm not accusing President Obama of consciously shunning Churchill because of his shared lineage with Bush; I'm just sharing a point the Telegraph might have made once they chose to bring family into it.
On the other hand, maybe a bit more research would show that Obama and Bush are related too. Wouldn't that be something having them show up at the same family reunion. Obama would be the control freak who insists everyone wear an ugly bright yellow tee shirt; Bush would be the wacky cousin who after loading up on hot dogs and baked beans asks every child present to pull his finger.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Counting and the Constitution
"Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that there was no legal or constitutional basis for Obama’s plans, citing the fact that Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which contains the census provision, spells out the powers of Congress -- not of the president or executive branch. “We [Congress] give to the executive branch and the Commerce Department the requirement to administer this constitutional duty, belonging to the Congress,” Issa explained. “By no means is there any basis, legal or constitutional basis, for the president to direct the census.” Obama has made no formal announcement of plans to take over the census, but numerous press reports last week – citing unnamed senior administration officials – said that he planned to have the Census Bureau’s director report directly to White House staff." From this article.
Well what about it? Is the President, with his reported plan to have more hands on involvement, ignoring the Constitution when it comes to the census?
Let's start at the beginning and note specifically what the Constitution says about a census. The relevant text is in Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." The emphasis is mine, because that's really the bone of contention here. What, exactly, has Congress by law directed?
As so often is the case in matters like this, Congress passed the buck: they simply directed the Executive branch to worry about the census. And they've spent quite a lot of ink doing that. There are fifty titles in the United States Code, everything from agriculture (Title 7) to veterans' benefits (Title 38). Would you believe there is an entire title devoted to the census? It's title 13 and if you thought all the Bureau of Census does is count people, I'd recommend a glance at some of the provisions. Take a peek at section 44:
"In addition to the information regarding cotton in the United States provided for in this subchapter, the Secretary shall compile, by correspondence or the use of published reports and documents, any available information concerning the production, consumption, and stocks of cotton in foreign countries, and the number of cotton-consuming spindles in such countries."
Makes you proud to be an American, huh? Now go ask a dozen intelligent people this question: "Who in the government keeps track of how much cotton is produced outside the U.S?" I'll bet they say it's the Secretary of Agriculture. But no, counting alien cotton is the duty of the Bureau of the Census, headed by the Secretary of Commerce. (That's assuming we ever HAVE a Secretary of Commerce.)
Well that's fun information, but not what we're looking for here. Section 2 of Title 13, from a law passed in 1954, places the Bureau of Census within the Department of Cotton--er, Commerce. So there's no argument there, Congress did put the census under the control of a member of the President's cabinet.
And is the President specifically mentioned when it comes to the ten year headcount? Yes, in section 141, which reads in part:
(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the ``decennial census date'', in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States.
I highlighted the things I think are most significant to the discussion here, and certainly the source of the disagreement between Congressman Issa and President Obama. In short, the Secretary of Commerce is specifically mentioned as the person authorized to basically conduct the census, but it also clearly declares that he must report his findings to the President.
Well I think Issa is posturing a bit here, but the opposition party to the President always does that. But I also think he has a point. You may if you choose defend Obama's plan by saying hey, he's the guy who the census report is supposed to ultimately be delivered to anyway, so why fuss if he's just trying to eliminate the middleman? And yes, I'd agree with you that in the general scheme of things, it really isn't that significant if Obama engages in a bit of a bypass to speed up the process. The problem with saying that Obama politicizes the census if he has a personal involvement is that the man or woman who ultimately does become Commerce Secretary will be a lieutenant of his who could also just as easily politicize it.
But Obama shouldn't be eliminating the middleman when the statute clearly specifies that the middleman is responsible for conducting the census. It isn't appropriate for the President to alter the procedure without Congressional approval.
They'll be reporting for spring training in Florida and Arizona shortly, so let me use a baseball analogy. Section 141 is, I think, a bit like an intentional walk. Every once in awhile, somebody will remark that it's a silly formality having the pitcher gently toss four straight pitches eight feet out of the strike zone. Why not just let the pitcher or catcher say to the umpire, "Let him take the base" and have the batter trot to first without the four lobs?
Sure, that could be done. But until such time as the lords of baseball decide to change the rule, the pitcher MUST make those four wide tosses.
It's the same thing with section 141 on the census. Maybe there's no good reason not to just say the President is authorized to handle it as he sees fit, seeing as how the person who does handle it is one of his political appointees anyway. But regardless of whether the distinction between the Secretary of Commerce reporting to the President or the President reporting to himself is trivial, that's the law as it stands. Obama shouldn't stray from that at all.
Well what about it? Is the President, with his reported plan to have more hands on involvement, ignoring the Constitution when it comes to the census?
Let's start at the beginning and note specifically what the Constitution says about a census. The relevant text is in Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." The emphasis is mine, because that's really the bone of contention here. What, exactly, has Congress by law directed?
As so often is the case in matters like this, Congress passed the buck: they simply directed the Executive branch to worry about the census. And they've spent quite a lot of ink doing that. There are fifty titles in the United States Code, everything from agriculture (Title 7) to veterans' benefits (Title 38). Would you believe there is an entire title devoted to the census? It's title 13 and if you thought all the Bureau of Census does is count people, I'd recommend a glance at some of the provisions. Take a peek at section 44:
"In addition to the information regarding cotton in the United States provided for in this subchapter, the Secretary shall compile, by correspondence or the use of published reports and documents, any available information concerning the production, consumption, and stocks of cotton in foreign countries, and the number of cotton-consuming spindles in such countries."
Makes you proud to be an American, huh? Now go ask a dozen intelligent people this question: "Who in the government keeps track of how much cotton is produced outside the U.S?" I'll bet they say it's the Secretary of Agriculture. But no, counting alien cotton is the duty of the Bureau of the Census, headed by the Secretary of Commerce. (That's assuming we ever HAVE a Secretary of Commerce.)
Well that's fun information, but not what we're looking for here. Section 2 of Title 13, from a law passed in 1954, places the Bureau of Census within the Department of Cotton--er, Commerce. So there's no argument there, Congress did put the census under the control of a member of the President's cabinet.
And is the President specifically mentioned when it comes to the ten year headcount? Yes, in section 141, which reads in part:
(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the ``decennial census date'', in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States.
I highlighted the things I think are most significant to the discussion here, and certainly the source of the disagreement between Congressman Issa and President Obama. In short, the Secretary of Commerce is specifically mentioned as the person authorized to basically conduct the census, but it also clearly declares that he must report his findings to the President.
Well I think Issa is posturing a bit here, but the opposition party to the President always does that. But I also think he has a point. You may if you choose defend Obama's plan by saying hey, he's the guy who the census report is supposed to ultimately be delivered to anyway, so why fuss if he's just trying to eliminate the middleman? And yes, I'd agree with you that in the general scheme of things, it really isn't that significant if Obama engages in a bit of a bypass to speed up the process. The problem with saying that Obama politicizes the census if he has a personal involvement is that the man or woman who ultimately does become Commerce Secretary will be a lieutenant of his who could also just as easily politicize it.
But Obama shouldn't be eliminating the middleman when the statute clearly specifies that the middleman is responsible for conducting the census. It isn't appropriate for the President to alter the procedure without Congressional approval.
They'll be reporting for spring training in Florida and Arizona shortly, so let me use a baseball analogy. Section 141 is, I think, a bit like an intentional walk. Every once in awhile, somebody will remark that it's a silly formality having the pitcher gently toss four straight pitches eight feet out of the strike zone. Why not just let the pitcher or catcher say to the umpire, "Let him take the base" and have the batter trot to first without the four lobs?
Sure, that could be done. But until such time as the lords of baseball decide to change the rule, the pitcher MUST make those four wide tosses.
It's the same thing with section 141 on the census. Maybe there's no good reason not to just say the President is authorized to handle it as he sees fit, seeing as how the person who does handle it is one of his political appointees anyway. But regardless of whether the distinction between the Secretary of Commerce reporting to the President or the President reporting to himself is trivial, that's the law as it stands. Obama shouldn't stray from that at all.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
February is Constitutional Amendment Month!
The U.S. Constitution went into effect on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the required ninth state to ratify it (Rakove, Original Meanings, 1996, pp. 121-22). The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, won ratification on December 15, 1791.
And here's the curious thing: of the seventeen amendments added since the Bill of Rights, five of them were ratified in February. By ratification date, of course, I mean the day by which the required number of states had voted in favor of the provision.
No other month has seen as many amendments pushed through as February, but there were also two ratified in December and three in January, so apparently winter is ski season and amendment season. This is probably not a coincidence, as obviously a state's legislature must be convened to vote on amendments and they tend to like getting their sessions in early so that by November elections people have forgotten most of the reasons to vote against them. In that regard, it's noteworthy that no amendment has ever been ratified in September, October, or November.
Anyway, the "February amendments" are the Eleventh, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Twenty-second, and Twenty-fifth. I'll not go into what each of those amendments is for, as if you want you can look it up, but one oddity is worth noting. The Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting the denial of vote based on race, was ratified on February 3, 1870. And the Sixteenth Amendment, giving Congress power to tax our incomes, the swine, got the required number of states to vote yes on February 3, 1913--exactly forty-three years to the day the last time the Constitution was modified.
It's actually a pity the income tax amendment didn't get ratified one day earlier; no doubt comedians could develop some funny material about the groundhog being scared back into his burrow not by his shadow but by an IRS agent.
And here's the curious thing: of the seventeen amendments added since the Bill of Rights, five of them were ratified in February. By ratification date, of course, I mean the day by which the required number of states had voted in favor of the provision.
No other month has seen as many amendments pushed through as February, but there were also two ratified in December and three in January, so apparently winter is ski season and amendment season. This is probably not a coincidence, as obviously a state's legislature must be convened to vote on amendments and they tend to like getting their sessions in early so that by November elections people have forgotten most of the reasons to vote against them. In that regard, it's noteworthy that no amendment has ever been ratified in September, October, or November.
Anyway, the "February amendments" are the Eleventh, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Twenty-second, and Twenty-fifth. I'll not go into what each of those amendments is for, as if you want you can look it up, but one oddity is worth noting. The Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting the denial of vote based on race, was ratified on February 3, 1870. And the Sixteenth Amendment, giving Congress power to tax our incomes, the swine, got the required number of states to vote yes on February 3, 1913--exactly forty-three years to the day the last time the Constitution was modified.
It's actually a pity the income tax amendment didn't get ratified one day earlier; no doubt comedians could develop some funny material about the groundhog being scared back into his burrow not by his shadow but by an IRS agent.
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Obama Federalist Papers
"What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.
"Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.
"That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. --President Barack Obama in an editorial today in the Washington Post.
..........
"Another advantage of the two-house legislature is that it makes it more difficult to create laws. While recognizing the obvious need for some legislation to pass, The Federalist expressed deep skepticism about the wisdom of most legislation: 'The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.' [Federalist 73, Hamilton]. Sometimes, Madison warned, we the people, through our 'own temporary errors and delusions' will push for legislation that we 'will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.' [Federalist 63]. The need for both houses to approve legislation slows down the process, and permits cooler heads to prevail. Put another way, gridlock can be good." --Meyerson, Liberty's Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World, 2008, p. 180.
And that's the problem, isn't it? What if the urgency the President calls for results in legislation we will afterwards be ready to lament and condemn?
"Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.
"That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. --President Barack Obama in an editorial today in the Washington Post.
..........
"Another advantage of the two-house legislature is that it makes it more difficult to create laws. While recognizing the obvious need for some legislation to pass, The Federalist expressed deep skepticism about the wisdom of most legislation: 'The injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.' [Federalist 73, Hamilton]. Sometimes, Madison warned, we the people, through our 'own temporary errors and delusions' will push for legislation that we 'will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.' [Federalist 63]. The need for both houses to approve legislation slows down the process, and permits cooler heads to prevail. Put another way, gridlock can be good." --Meyerson, Liberty's Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World, 2008, p. 180.
And that's the problem, isn't it? What if the urgency the President calls for results in legislation we will afterwards be ready to lament and condemn?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Nothing to Jim Crow about
It's Black History Month, so it's time to reflect on America's less than perfect past, to marvel at the accomplishments of people like Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King who succeeded in spite of racism, and to celebrate how far we've come that a man whose dad was born in Africa can become President.
Also it's time to see a few articles that make your eyeballs roll. Here's one:
"President Barack Obama simultaneously fulfills the fondest hopes and worst fears in certain groups of Americans as the first black man to hold the White House. What are keys for Obama to break down racial divisions in the country?
"He has a good start based on the statistics of the campaign. The most prolific fundraiser in political history... Obama raised nearly $640 million in his campaign, and many of those dollars came from first-time donors in small checks. People of every stripe voted with their pocketbook before they ever set foot in a voting booth."
Wait a second. In a discussion of Obama breaking down racial divisions the first thing Woolman points to is that he raised lots of money? Not that he won primaries and caucuses in states where the vast majority of voters were white? Not that he won a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, where a Chicago suburb was dubbed "the Selma of the North" by Dr. King, who preached when Obama was a boy? (See Cahan, A Court That Shaped America, 2002, pp. 127-29). Not even that he was first black president of the Harvard Law Review? His first and foremost claim to ending racial divisions is that he got a lot of folks to reach into their wallets? Obama is a persuasive guy; if he hadn't gone into politics he could probably have gotten multitudes to open their checkbooks by selling time shares; this would scarcely earn him Time magazine's Man of the Year.
The article goes on to refer to the United States as a "country where the Confederate flag still flies and people look back fondly at a Jim Crow past." This is, of course, like saying the U.S. is a country where people are fond of theft. There are thieves, of course, but that scarcely means we are a nation of thieves. And there are a few bigots--a very few--who might fondly remember when Rosa Parks was told where to sit, but these folks are insignificant dolts who live in their own world of hatred. For Woolman to speak of those who fondly remember a Jim Crow past, as though such folks are common is rather unsettling.
Well, enough about trivial articles you can read in a minute and a half. February's designation as Black History Month makes this a great time for me to mention two books on the history of race in America. These are books I wish every American would read. One is C. Vann Woodward's The Strange Career of Jim Crow, first published in 1955. If you ever saw a historical photograph of a water fountain with an adjacent sign declaring it to be for "Whites only" and wondered how in blazes our society managed to descend to such depths, Woodward explains it in about 230 pages.
A much longer book is Richard Kluger's Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality, first published in 1975. This is a very scholarly and complete look at the school segregation decisions. Kluger dives into the background on each of the five cases that eventually were lumped together into the Brown decision, so there is lots of information on what happened not only in Kansas, but also in South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. Here's one indicator of how thorough Kluger's tome is: there are about thirty pages of biographical information on the nine Justices sitting on the Supreme Court that ruled on Brown. A book that has three pages on Harold Burton and that is almost 800 pages long minus the notes and index could easily be tedious reading, but Kluger grabs your interest through the entire volume.
Also it's time to see a few articles that make your eyeballs roll. Here's one:
"President Barack Obama simultaneously fulfills the fondest hopes and worst fears in certain groups of Americans as the first black man to hold the White House. What are keys for Obama to break down racial divisions in the country?
"He has a good start based on the statistics of the campaign. The most prolific fundraiser in political history... Obama raised nearly $640 million in his campaign, and many of those dollars came from first-time donors in small checks. People of every stripe voted with their pocketbook before they ever set foot in a voting booth."
Wait a second. In a discussion of Obama breaking down racial divisions the first thing Woolman points to is that he raised lots of money? Not that he won primaries and caucuses in states where the vast majority of voters were white? Not that he won a U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, where a Chicago suburb was dubbed "the Selma of the North" by Dr. King, who preached when Obama was a boy? (See Cahan, A Court That Shaped America, 2002, pp. 127-29). Not even that he was first black president of the Harvard Law Review? His first and foremost claim to ending racial divisions is that he got a lot of folks to reach into their wallets? Obama is a persuasive guy; if he hadn't gone into politics he could probably have gotten multitudes to open their checkbooks by selling time shares; this would scarcely earn him Time magazine's Man of the Year.
The article goes on to refer to the United States as a "country where the Confederate flag still flies and people look back fondly at a Jim Crow past." This is, of course, like saying the U.S. is a country where people are fond of theft. There are thieves, of course, but that scarcely means we are a nation of thieves. And there are a few bigots--a very few--who might fondly remember when Rosa Parks was told where to sit, but these folks are insignificant dolts who live in their own world of hatred. For Woolman to speak of those who fondly remember a Jim Crow past, as though such folks are common is rather unsettling.
Well, enough about trivial articles you can read in a minute and a half. February's designation as Black History Month makes this a great time for me to mention two books on the history of race in America. These are books I wish every American would read. One is C. Vann Woodward's The Strange Career of Jim Crow, first published in 1955. If you ever saw a historical photograph of a water fountain with an adjacent sign declaring it to be for "Whites only" and wondered how in blazes our society managed to descend to such depths, Woodward explains it in about 230 pages.
A much longer book is Richard Kluger's Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality, first published in 1975. This is a very scholarly and complete look at the school segregation decisions. Kluger dives into the background on each of the five cases that eventually were lumped together into the Brown decision, so there is lots of information on what happened not only in Kansas, but also in South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. Here's one indicator of how thorough Kluger's tome is: there are about thirty pages of biographical information on the nine Justices sitting on the Supreme Court that ruled on Brown. A book that has three pages on Harold Burton and that is almost 800 pages long minus the notes and index could easily be tedious reading, but Kluger grabs your interest through the entire volume.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
