Truth as a journey on a winding road

Confronted by written and spoken words  in direct opposition to what I was taught and believe to be true, I usually turn to a search of current and historical truths. Some of us, and I am one of those people, simply need to verify what we believe. In doing so, we often learn more than what we knew before. In the hands of a good journalist truth is power. It is a power that presents itself through a careful and honest process of discovery. Truth is easily accessed by using the six single word questions used by journalists: Who(?), What(?), When(?), Where(?), How(?), and the all important Why(?). After the search, the newly gathered or perhaps merely forgotten results often cause me to pause and reflect and think to myself,  I didn’t know that.

David Barton’s The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson is responsible for my search for the truth confronting revisionist’s writings dedicated to attacks on our nation’s founders, especially Thomas Jefferson, as evil slave owners. Surely there is obvious truth to the contrary. A new reading of Thomas Paine’s timeless masterpiece, Common Sense, reminded me of the clearly stated reasons for our separation from England and it also led me to the discovery of the crystal clear reason why there is no king in America. A quick review of the history behind the Bill of Rights surprised me yet again. The questions asked and answered have, once again, proved refreshing.

My journey began with Scott Rohter’s January 2012 article “Life, Liberty and… the Divisive Issue of Slavery”.  Rohter moved directly to the point when he immediately asked “Why did the Founding Fathers use the words Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration of Independence instead of the words Life, Liberty and Property?

Life Liberty and property are both found in English common law and the writings of English philosopher, John Locke.   Locke’s written ideas became the foundation of the Whig Party in America and these words are also the original language source used by Thomas Jefferson as he wrote the Declaration of Independence.  Why indeed.

For clear and good reason, property rights were not mentioned as one of ‘self-evident truths’ and a part of the ‘unalienable rights’ endowed by our Creator.

When carefully read, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution gets at the heart of the matter.  It was clear that the six Southern states would never have agreed to ratify the Constitution because the language threatened their ‘property rights’. The remaining seven northern states did not wish to “prolong the unconscionable sin of slavery” nor support “property rights which included the ownership of people. In fact, most northerners felt that the whole idea of ‘owning’ another person was wrong.”

Clearly, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin the primary drafters of the Declaration of Independence avoided taking a position either in favor or against slavery by substituting “the Pursuit of Happiness for Property for good reason.

In the attempt to build a nation, it was recognized that the issue of slavery was not to be decided at that time. It was, without a doubt, recognized for what it was but there was a nation waiting to be born. It was not an act of hypocrisy or malice. It merely postponed the confrontation of the issue. There is no reason to believe that these men supported the concept or reality of slavery. It can and has been demonstrated that there was a strongly held belief that the Southern states would come to understand the error of their ways and a nation could be given life. Sadly, while this evenly considered approach to the issue of slavery eventually led to the ratification of the Constitution,  it also proved powerless to change the minds of those who continued to hold their human property. It was interesting to learn here that “this ideological division would become the basis for our two party political system.” History reveals that “Democrats believed in owning slaves. Republicans did not.”  How do you explain the polar shift now voiced by today’s self proclaimed Democratic race protectors?

It is important to remember that even after the Constitution was ratified by nine of the original thirteen colonies, one of the first necessary acts of Congress was to pass a Bill of Rights. The issue would be revisited in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It is there that you will see Life, Liberty and Property “used for the first time in American law. But … and but is important!  But the Constitution had been ratified and the nation had been established. Our Founders were not racists, period. They did what was expedient to bring states and peoples together to build a nation not to perpetuate a wrong, Alas, we are all aware that another crises would arise in the form of a Civil War in beginning in 1861.  This dramatic conflict again focused on owned property and it came at a great cost but it did finally move the will of the nation forward again and away from slavery.

The search for truths is almost always a journey on a winding road. I eventually found myself focusing on The Bill of Rights because its creation insured that all thirteen colonies not just the original nine as noted above would eventually ratify the Constitution and set our nation on its desired course. It was not a short journey. Our Constitution was written in the summer of 1787. Rhode Island did not even send delegates to this convention. Even that was not a done deal. By 1788 only 9 states had ratified the Constitution. Virginia and New York still had not ratified.  Rhode Island and North Carolina continued to refuse to ratify until a bill of rights was in place even though James Madison had promised that the bill of rights would be added after ratification. In June 1789, Madison finally kept his promise and proposed a series of amendments to be debated in the first Congress and we had our first ten amendments to the Constitution. You should be reminded that the commitment to ratify by the nine was absolutely necessary. Without the agreement and support of the nine we would have had no Constitution.

In closing there are but two brief points remaining for your consideration.

From Thomas Paine’s Common Sense comes the simple but eloquent explanation for royalty in England and the absence of a King in America. “But where, says some is the King of America? … He reigns above and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute in Britain,  …Let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the change. …Let the charter be brought forth and placed on the divine law;…let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know,…That in America the law isking….Let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished and scattered among the people whose right it is.” Because of Paine’s words you now have a better understanding of  the phrase used today: We are a nation of laws.

From the Billofrightsinstitute.org/founding documents/constitutional, James Madison is quoted as seeing at least one important difference between European freedom documents and our Constitution.”In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example… of charters of power granted by liberty.”  

Those of you who read this blog at an earlier date probably recall that at this point I was critical of the president because earlier comments by him led me to believe that he did not believe that the United States was unique. First of all I used the wrong word. I should have used the word exceptional. Secondly I have reviewed additional speeches and must acknowledge that he has, indeed, on separate occasions spoken positively about what makes America exceptional. I have, therefore, deleted the entire accusation because what I have said was not accurate and that was unacceptable.