The shocking assassination attempt against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on Saturday has reverberated through the media and the national consciousness. Before the end of the day there was speculation as to political motive. We wondered at the ease at which the assassin obtained a weapon and the the current rancorous state of politics. By Sunday the New York Times soberly assessed the feeling and noted that while it would be "facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members" Loughner "is very much a part of a widespread squall of fear, anger and intolerance that has produced violent threats against scores of politicians and infected the political mainstream with violent imagery."
By today a backlash against blaming gun laws and right wing rhetoric had emerged. George Will said we were too quick to jump to conclusions, a defect in human thinking somehow both "timeless" and "modern." He called those advancing the narrative "charlatans" with "half-baked explanations" using "bad sociology." As support, he recounted the assassination of President Garfield by Charles Guiteau, subject of recent entry on this blog, and stated that "Guiteau was executed, not explained." It would be merciful if Will's historical conclusions were not so half-baked.
To say that Guiteau was merely executed and forgotten and not "explained" as Will so derisively puts it ignores the historical facts. Will states the basic outlines of the events leading up to and including the assassination: the bitter partisan fighting between the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds and Guiteau's statement that "Arthur would be President." He leaves out that the fighting was largely about political patronage. He also ignores the aftermath. He ignores the media frenzy after the attack and the accusations against Roscoe Conkling and Chester Arthur. He ignores the long trial of Guiteau where his politics and his madness were put on display for all America. Most importantly he ignores the transformation of Chester Arthur and the passage of civil service reform.
By all accounts Arthur was mentally and emotionally devastated by the attack, and his actions later as President suggest much soul-searching. Arthur, Garfield's Vice President, had been a political enemy of Garfield, more loyal to party boss Roscoe Conkling than the President. But the assassination changed Arthur. He took a stand against the patronage and graft of the Stalwarts. When Conkling asked him to remove unfriendly Garfield appointees, Arthur refused. He later signed the Pendleton Civil Service Act, putting an end to much of the political patronage that had characterized the time.
It seems to me that Arthur took the assassination as moment for sober reflection on the patronage issue. What before had seemed unthinkable to him suddenly became a clear priority. Arthur was not a victim of "charlatans," nor was he led by a defect of modern character. Arthur's change of heart, and indeed the country's change of heart, after Garfield's assassination was not from the influence of half-baked ideas, but from historical reflection--putting together the events of the past to make sense of human events and to guide future action. Ultimately, it was not patronage, partisan rancor, or Chester Arthur that killed James Garfield. It was Charles Guiteau. But change happened on all three fronts nonetheless. Civil service reform limited patronage, the Stalwarts, Half-Breeds and their conflicts faded, and Chester Arthur became an independent-minded President instead of a political boss.
Arguing that our focus on violent political speech or on gun control laws is improper is missing the point. Sarah Palin's target map putting Rep. Gifford in the cross-hairs does not have to take human form and pull the trigger for us to question the current state of political discourse. The assassin's 30-round clip (previously banned from 1994 to 2004) does not have discharge on its own for us to consider gun control laws. They did not "directly" cause the assassination. But the assassination is cause for reflection on them. When Ulysses Grant reflected on the causes of the Mexican War and Abraham Lincoln on the causes of the Civil War they were not victims of "bad sociology," but good students of history.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
James Garfield: Principles of Responsible Power
"They all teach the same lesson. They enable us to trace, from its far-off source, the progress and development of Anglo-Saxon liberty; its conflicts with irresponsible power; its victories, dearly bought, but always won-victories which have crowned with immortal honors the institutions of England, and left their indelible impress upon the Anglo-Saxon mind. These principles our fathers brought with them to the New World, and guarded with vigilance and devotion. During the late Rebellion, the Republic did not forget them."
-Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 56 (1866)
Garfield was many things in his career: a bookish educator, a general, a hawkish Republican congressman, a defender of the rights of Southern Copperheads, and, briefly, President of the United States.
 |
| Mmmm whatcha say. Mmm that you only meant well? Garfield shot by Guiteau |
He didn't initially seek the nomination of his party, but became a dark horse candidate over Grant at the 1880 Republican National Convention, which prompted a long and bitter conflict over nominations and appointments upon his election.
He argued his first case as a lawyer before the Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan, arguing that trying civilians in military courts in Northern states was unconstitutional. This despite his calls in Congress for total war against the South, the utter destruction of slavery and the South's landed estates, and the execution of its leaders.
Milligan has taken on renewed importance since 9/11 with the decisions in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. During his oral argument Garfield noted that the institution of civil trials was so ingrained in the American character that even the South had used civil courts during the war.
In some sense it is a shame that Garfield's statue is dominated by the equestrian Grant a short distance away. Why should Garfield have to suffer in Grant's shadow in death as he did in life? However, in another way it is fitting to Garfield's character. Though Garfield was also a general he is not on horseback in his statue, and he holds a book instead of a sword. He was not a giant like Grant who dominated his age. Garfield was a Cicero and not a Caesar. Garfield's career stands for responsible use of power and good civil government. Perhaps in a republic it is higher praise not to be a giant.
Sources:
View Untitled in a larger map
Sunday, January 2, 2011
John Paul Jones: Hero Without a Cause
Lived: 1747 - 1792
Occupation and Title: Captain, Continental Navy; Rear Admiral, Russian Navy; Chevalier
Quote: "In time of Peace, it is necessary to prepare, and be always prepared, for War by Sea." - Letter to Robert Morris, Superintendent of Finance of the United States (1782)
Fun Fact: Once after a night of partying in New Orleans (then called Nueva Orleans because it was controlled by the Spanish), Jones and a transvestite he met at the bar accidentally set his room at the Royal Orleans hotel on fire.
John Paul Jones is remembered as a great American Revolutionary War hero. Though his daring exploits dazzled the public, they had little strategic impact on the war and perhaps shone so brightly because the rest of the Continental Navy performed so dismally. The Continental Congress awarded Congressional Gold Medals to six Revolutionary War generals, but Jones was only naval officer to receive a medal.
One would be hard pressed to say he had much of a lasting impact on the development of the United States and he certainly isn't a founding father. Unlike the long litany of war heroes who have gone on to dominate American political life, Jones seems to have had little interest in public office.
However, what I think is most striking is that an opportunity was there for Jones to make a more lasting contribution to the development of the fledgling United States. There were challenges faced by the United States in its first years after the Revolutionary War which Jones' talents could have been ably applied to. But the country had no appetite for maintaining a navy during the Articles of Confederation period.
In June 1782, Jones was to be given command of the 74-gun America. But Congress instead gave the America to France and Jones was left with a lesser command and orders to go to Europe to collect prize money owed from the war. By the time this commission had run its course Congress had sold the remainder of its warships at auction and the United States was without a blue water navy; it had no place for one of the greatest living naval heroes. Jones left for Russia to accept a commission in the Russian Navy, though he retained his United States citizenship.
Unfortunately, the United States soon faced a naval crisis and would be left to cope without Jones. In 1785 the American merchant ships Maria and Dauphin were taken by Algerian corsairs (Barbary pirates) and 22 Americans were enslaved in North Africa. With no navy, the weak Articles of Confederation government was largely unable to deal with the crisis. By 1793 another 110 Americans had been taken captive. By the time the Barbary pirates issue was finally settled in 1815, over 600 Americans had been enslaved in the Barbary states. The crisis was finally solved after the adoption of the Constitution, the authorization to build a new navy by Congress, and by the United States waging war on the Barbary pirates between 1801-1805 and again in 1815.
What would have happened if the Continental Navy had not been sold and Jones had been given a command to deal with Barbary pirates and free the captives from the Maria and the Dauphin? Indeed, Thomas Jefferson had contemplated such a course while Ambassador to France in 1785, writing to John Adams that "Paul Jones with half a dozen frigates would totally destroy [them]." Jefferson was no doubt correct. Lesser officers managed to do it with fewer ship under Jefferson as President.
Lets assume that the Articles of Confederation government somehow managed to continue to support the Continental Navy until 1785 and that Jones successfully beat the the pirates and forced them to release American captives and agree to safe passage for American ships throughout the Mediterranean. What effects might this have on U.S. history? Perhaps the military success would have shown the Articles of Confederation government vigorous enough to preempt the Constitutional Convention. Would we still feel the same way about George Washington? The increased commercial revenues would favor Northern interests and perhaps that strength combined with a less intrusive Federal government would weaken Southern resolve on slavery or secession. Or perhaps America's naval strength and commercial dominance would prolong the Atlantic slave trade and the institution of slavery even longer. With a strong navy America would likely have been more involved in the Napoleonic Wars and been able to tip the balance in the Atlantic, as Alexander Hamilton had wanted, by throwing its support to Britain or France. Perhaps America would have slowed its westward expansion and instead acquired control of colonies in the Caribbean from whoever it sided against in the Napoleonic Wars.
All speculative of course, but the story of Jones suggests that policies and ideas depend for their success on their times. A blue water navy was largely a failure during the Revolutionary War, but it would have been a great boon to an early independent America.
Sources:
View Larger Map
John Paul Jones is remembered as a great American Revolutionary War hero. Though his daring exploits dazzled the public, they had little strategic impact on the war and perhaps shone so brightly because the rest of the Continental Navy performed so dismally. The Continental Congress awarded Congressional Gold Medals to six Revolutionary War generals, but Jones was only naval officer to receive a medal.
 |
| Congress also awarded Jones this commemorative 1762 Fender Jazz Bass |
However, what I think is most striking is that an opportunity was there for Jones to make a more lasting contribution to the development of the fledgling United States. There were challenges faced by the United States in its first years after the Revolutionary War which Jones' talents could have been ably applied to. But the country had no appetite for maintaining a navy during the Articles of Confederation period.
Unfortunately, the United States soon faced a naval crisis and would be left to cope without Jones. In 1785 the American merchant ships Maria and Dauphin were taken by Algerian corsairs (Barbary pirates) and 22 Americans were enslaved in North Africa. With no navy, the weak Articles of Confederation government was largely unable to deal with the crisis. By 1793 another 110 Americans had been taken captive. By the time the Barbary pirates issue was finally settled in 1815, over 600 Americans had been enslaved in the Barbary states. The crisis was finally solved after the adoption of the Constitution, the authorization to build a new navy by Congress, and by the United States waging war on the Barbary pirates between 1801-1805 and again in 1815.
What would have happened if the Continental Navy had not been sold and Jones had been given a command to deal with Barbary pirates and free the captives from the Maria and the Dauphin? Indeed, Thomas Jefferson had contemplated such a course while Ambassador to France in 1785, writing to John Adams that "Paul Jones with half a dozen frigates would totally destroy [them]." Jefferson was no doubt correct. Lesser officers managed to do it with fewer ship under Jefferson as President.
Lets assume that the Articles of Confederation government somehow managed to continue to support the Continental Navy until 1785 and that Jones successfully beat the the pirates and forced them to release American captives and agree to safe passage for American ships throughout the Mediterranean. What effects might this have on U.S. history? Perhaps the military success would have shown the Articles of Confederation government vigorous enough to preempt the Constitutional Convention. Would we still feel the same way about George Washington? The increased commercial revenues would favor Northern interests and perhaps that strength combined with a less intrusive Federal government would weaken Southern resolve on slavery or secession. Or perhaps America's naval strength and commercial dominance would prolong the Atlantic slave trade and the institution of slavery even longer. With a strong navy America would likely have been more involved in the Napoleonic Wars and been able to tip the balance in the Atlantic, as Alexander Hamilton had wanted, by throwing its support to Britain or France. Perhaps America would have slowed its westward expansion and instead acquired control of colonies in the Caribbean from whoever it sided against in the Napoleonic Wars.
All speculative of course, but the story of Jones suggests that policies and ideas depend for their success on their times. A blue water navy was largely a failure during the Revolutionary War, but it would have been a great boon to an early independent America.
Sources:
View Larger Map
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Ulysses S. Grant: Fate and Consequences
Lived: 1822-1885
Occupation: General of the Army of the United States, 18th President of the United States
Quote: "But I leave comparisons to history, claiming only that I have acted in every instance from a conscientious desire to do what was right, constitutional, within the law, and for the very best interests of the whole people. Failures have been errors of judgment, not of intent." - State of the Union, December 5, 1876. "But all my successes were intentional," he added on December 6.
Fun Fact: The S. stands for "son of a bitch," a nickname he earned at West Point for riding past other cadets and skewering their hats with his saber.
 |
| Ulysses S. Grant: Caveman? "[P]re-intellectual, archaic, and would have seemed so even to the cave-dwellers." - Henry Adams |
On the Civil War, probably the most important event in American history and one in which Grant had a central role, Grant says in his memoirs that it was "largely an outgrowth of the Mexican war," an event we now relegate to footnotes but one which Grant, who served as an officer under Zachary Taylor in the war, called "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation." It is difficult to imagine a holder of national office saying something like that today without being swiftboated.
"Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times," Grant said of the Civil War and its connection to the Mexican War. In a way his conclusion seems similar to Lincoln's assertion in his Second Inaugural Address that the war was God's punishment for slavery and must be fought "until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword." Both men believed that people must live with the consequences of their actions, even while both seemed to believe that those actions were, to a degree, ordained by Providence--we are both the causes and the instruments of our own fate.
The Sioux Wars, too, he blamed squarely on America and its sins, saying Indian hostilities in the Black Hills were brought on by the "avarice of the white man." Grant and Lincoln's understanding of war and conflict as punishment for earlier American sins is a conception of morality and human history several orders of magnitude higher than what we find today, blaming sexual proclivities for the weather. Though both men spoke in religious terms, the theme was that human events have human causes.
In concluding his memoir, Grant wrote that he hoped we were on the eve of a "new era" of "great harmony." He wrote that while ill he had an outpouring of support from all sides of the conflict, both Federal and Confederate supporters and people from all parts of American society. "I hope the good feeling inaugurated may continue to the end."
It is unfortunate that Grant's ideas and convictions as expressed in his memoirs did not have a greater impact during his life. What if Grant had taken a firmer stand as President against white settlement of the Dakotas? What if he had spoken out earlier against the Mexican War? Would it have made a difference? Or in taking such unpopular positions would Grant have never risen to be the dominant figure he was?
Sources:
View Larger Map
The Plan
Like all good Internet endeavors, this one begins with Wikipedia. It was late (11ish) on a Saturday night, and like any cool young D.C. professional I was at home googling for pictures of the statue in Thomas Circle. Why? I don't remember. But I had recently been congratulated by Sid Meier's Civilization V
for logging 100 hours of play, which seemed more depressing than lauditory. I found a list of 103 statutes of historical figures in Washington, D.C. In a fit of Julie/Julia Project inspired passion, I decided that I must visit all 103 of these statues in the year 2011, I must photograph them all, and I must write a historical reflection on each person. Surely this would earn me an achievement I could be proud of.
The Rules:
Statue Selection
for logging 100 hours of play, which seemed more depressing than lauditory. I found a list of 103 statutes of historical figures in Washington, D.C. In a fit of Julie/Julia Project inspired passion, I decided that I must visit all 103 of these statues in the year 2011, I must photograph them all, and I must write a historical reflection on each person. Surely this would earn me an achievement I could be proud of.The Rules:
Statue Selection
- The statue must be representative of a specific historical personage (i.e., the statues of the Korean War Memorial don't count).
- The statue must be outside or contained in a structure exposed to open air (i.e., the statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection in the Capitol don't count).
- It must be a statue, not a bust or an architectural element dedicated to a person (i.e., the fountain in Dupont Circle doesn't count).
- I will operate from the list on Wikipedia unless I learn of others that meet the criteria. If other statues are found that meet the criteria, they must be done in 2011 as well.
Research
- I will take public transportation to all statues (I need to see more of the city I live in).
- All photographs must be taken personally (Google image search is too easy, and I don't want to steal anyone's copyrighted material.
- I will use free resources whenever possible, with priority given to the D.C. Public Library and the Library of Congress over the Internet (Using the Internet as my only source is too easy, and I should dig deeper).
- I will identify sources.
Writing
- I will write an historical reflection, not a biography of the person.
- For subjects I am familiar with, I must try to learn something new about the person.
- I will try to find in the life of each person something valuable to learn or contemplate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)