Poem "Vision Through the Window"

Vision Through the Window

 

The gray sky outlined by the pale shadow of the mountains, dressed in pale blue the hue of polar ice, barely seen.

 

Here and there whips of smoky grey spread themselves like gossamer fingers; to become the sole betrayer of movement in another wise opaque sky.

 

An Antique white haze, occasioned by irregular blemishes of deviant brightness; offer the only  recess to gloom and the collapse of all hope in the blanketing cloak.

 

In the foreground  the pinny greens seem dark and uninviting. So dense the nature of their vestige, a deep melancholy is revealed.

 

This scene so  forlorn was all that creation granted to man's scorn.
This hollow, haggard morn

 

Written by Mark R. Day on 29 September 2012, while looking out a window at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia toward the Eastern slope of the Blue Ridge Mountains.  Copyright by Mark R. Day 29 September 2012, all rights reserved

"Book Review" of "The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood, Lewis J., Chapel Hill, UNC Press 1998

 James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood:  The United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. xi +304 pp

Reviewed by Mark R. Day

     Professor James E. Lewis seeks to examine the motivations behind American policy, both domestic and foreign, that arose from the debate over trade and boundary issues,  in the newly formed American Republic and the deteriorating Spanish Colonial Empire.  The work examines  a topic in American history that has traditionally been seen only through the works of Twentieth century Historians Samuel Flag Bemis[1] and A. P Whitaker, both of whom were considered the authoritative voices on the subject  of  American Foreign policy[2],  during the early years of our nation.  Mr. Lewis writes a narrative which searches for a deeper understanding of the  public policies of both Federalist and Democratic Republican leaders during the five decades that follow the founding of the American republic.  Lewis frames his argument by constructing  a new paradigm within which to view these policies as part of a global strategy intended to secure American prosperity .

     From the first page of the introduction Lewis confronts the reader with a set of previously understated motivations that promote a sense of political intrigue on the part of the founders.  He presents the reader with a  point of view, on the part of the founders, that stresses preservation of the American Republic over the spread of democratic ideals in the western hemisphere..  The founding fathers policies, says Mr. Lewis , reflect their a perception that the new republic would be threatened by commercial competition for land and trade if more than one single sovereign power was allowed to rise out of the ashes of revolution in the Americas'.

     Lewis maintains that American policy makers, from both political parties,  sought to preserve their goals of popular government, within the infant United States,  and the right to practice individual enterprise. This would be accomplished by enforcing policies which prevented the establishment of a one or more competing governments within the boundaries of the land acquired from England under the terms of the treaty of Paris 1783,  or small republican states that might be carved out of the Spanish holdings.  For the Founders, Lewis believes, the issue of balancing economic and political power within the Western Hemisphere, was one that had to be managed forcefully.  Failure to do so would result in  the Western Hemisphere's decline into the chaos of political  and economic rivalries that,  inevitably lead to the constant warfare and economic instability which had dominated European relations for the past two centuries.

     Professor Lewis divides the book into time frames in order to discuss the key events that he says prove his argument .   He begins  with this quote "The fluidity of the New World coupled with the incredible fragility of the American union posed a dual threat,"[3] Lewis.  explains  that the Founders worried  that at any time a new nation might appear, created out of the disorder of the Spanish Empire and the rapid movement of settlers into the Trans Appalachian region.  Prior to the election of 1800  the press of settlers who flocked into the west demanded more land and access to the Mississippi.  The new Constitutional government feared that these settlers would become a distant people and could themselves declare a independent republic,  that action would threaten the union. Lewis next points out that the men who would make the  decisions and policies were split  on the methods by which the settlers' needs would be met.  The Federalist and their Northeastern  supporters were more interested in promoting the union by insuring that the authority of the government grew at least as rapidly as the population and size of the western settlements, while  the Jeffersonian Democrats looked to engage in a policy that would satiate the desires of the western settlers by satisfying their political, economic, and diplomatic interest.   Lewis identifies The Northwest Ordinance as the policy of the Federalist who felt that by establishing an incremental method of gaining statehood while limiting migration through high prices for government owned lots would limit the danger.  He indicates that the Democratic Republicans seemed to have a better understanding  of the settlers'  character,  and understood that if the interests of the westerners were not considered , they would likely seek to govern themselves.   

     The Federalist governments Jay-Gardoqui treaty negotiations of 1786-1787,  served notice of the need to follow a policy that included the interest of western settlers.  Lewis says Jay and his supporters from  the Northeast miscalculated when they attempted to make the west less appealing to migration by closing the Mississippi River to trade for twenty-fire or thirty years.  Western settlers living in the Ohio and Tennessee River Valleys voiced their outrage and sought to break away from the union and align themselves with the Spanish.  Lewis later states that the Spanish Conspiracy in Kentucky validated the fears of the Democratic -Republican opposition, by providing evidence that the Federalist policy would lead to disunion.  The reorganization of the government from Articles of Confederation to the Constitutional Government of 1789 did bring the key policy makers to agreement in order to secure the new Constitutional Union.  However, Lewis  goes on to discuss the financial policies of Alexander Hamilton in terms of their impact on union.  He says  that the Democratic Republican faction felt that the  Federalist fixation on relations with England and in their words the Walpolian system of permanent debt,  established by Hamilton,  would lead to the people choosing to throw off the Federal government and cause the disillusion of the union[4]

     With the victory by Jefferson in 1800,  the decision makers for the next fourteen years would be Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.  Professor Lewis identifies two primary issues that were dealt with by the trio above.  The first of these issues was the return of Louisiana to Napoleonic France.   Highlighting the importance of the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains Lewis provides  the following statement written by  Thomas Jefferson in 1786,  "Our confederacy must be viewed as the nest from which all of American North and South is to be peopled."  Continuing Lewis reveals   Jefferson's'  fear that Spain was "too feeble to hold them {its colonies} until our population is sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece. "[5]   Lewis provides further analysis on to Thomas Jefferson's reaction to the dissolution of the Spanish Empire, which begins in 1801 with the return of Louisiana to France, by stating that "historians have generally misunderstood the nature of the crisis created by retrocession of Louisiana to France in October 1800."[6]  Lewis  comments that Jefferson and Madison saw the French control of the Mississippi as a reemergence of the conflict  over free navigation of the river.  Such a disruption of trade would be tantamount to economic blackmail of the western population,  which could lead to an East - West split and dissolution of the union.  To defuse this potential crisis the Republican solution was to ensure the connection of the west with the rest of the union by expanding the territory of the United States. "The purchase of Louisiana was seen as the best way to resolve the problem.  However, not everyone saw this as the right policy.  Lewis says " The Louisiana Purchase met with ambivalence from prominent Federalist and Republicans"[7]  For many this would not solve the problem but rather exacerbated the problem by promoting  migration into the newly acquired lands at a rapid pace and increase the likelihood of disunion.  Jefferson himself said " however our present interest may restrain us within our own limits it is impossible not to look forward to distant times when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits ....... cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in  similar forms and by similar laws."[8]   Jefferson was well aware that the westward movement of Americans was inevitable,  but his statement implies that disunion was not likely  as long as the laws and traditions of the people remained similar and land was available for economic opportunity.

     The second primary issue identified by Lewis  centered on the problems created by the  revolutions that brought independence to many former colonies of the Spanish in the Western hemisphere.  For the American policy makers a crisis arose out of concern over Eastern and Western Florida.  Lewis points out that the position of these provinces in close proximity to the Mississippi made them particularly important to the security of New Orleans and the mouth of the Mississippi.  Further the Aaron Burr Conspiracy of 1806 highlighted the danger posed by a failure to secure the loyalty of the Trans- Appalachian people and keep the Mississippi open to trade.  Lewis says that Jefferson saw Burr as a man who promoted disunion, and had Burr succeeded in capturing New Orleans he could have created a new nation through the use of an embargo against the western settlers and challenged the union east of the mountains as well.   Lewis notes that while the Republicans were successful in their pursuit of territorial expansion, they failed  to calm the western settlers' fear of lost trade.  Lewis  goes on to point out that the Embargo of 1807 was not received well and that the lack of effective control during the War of 1812 caused many to lose faith in the ability of the Federal government to serve their interest. 

     After the War of 1812 Lewis says the "Republican presidents Madison and Monroe pursued a less aggressive policy toward their neighboring  British, Spanish and Indian  powers. "[9]  The disillusion of the Spanish Empire was met cautiously by American policy makers who carefully watched the various revolutions in the Spanish colonies which threatened to create competition problems for the still young American Republic.  Officially the United States remained neutral in these revolutions, a position that was unpopular with many citizens.   Lewis explains the policy of president Madison as one in which he "sought to balance the projected commercial, territorial, and strategic benefits of an independent New World with feared diplomatic and military risks of a rupture with Spain."[10] Clearly Madison was reluctant to put the American Republic at risk by pressuring Spain into war over American support for independence movements even though Lewis says "in American eyes, the revolutionaries represented the dearest of human rights."[11]  Lewis points out that in 1816 Madison and Monroe sought to start negotiations with Spain for all Spain's territory east of the Mississippi.  A key portion of that negotiations was  the requirement  that Spain would have to acknowledge American claims on the Columbia River and Northwest coastline.  This seems to be in step with the Democratic- Republican position that providing new land and securing  the access to trade routes was critical to promoting unity in the American Republic.   The intervention of Andrew Jackson, a westerner, into Florida in 1816 and the call by that same individual for the movement of the federal Troops to the Sabine River were provocative in nature but can be seen as evidence of the desire of westerners to gain control of as much territory as possible from Spain.  

     As the disillusion of Spain's American Empire continued Lewis says "Adams doubted that a people that were Catholic, mixed race or Spanish, and inured to tyranny could govern themselves."[12]  However Henry Clay, a westerner, pressured Monroe and Adams to see what he felt were substantial benefits for the American union by recognizing the newly independent nations of South America even if they were not republican governments.  Professor Lewis says  Adams believed "They would remain aloof from European Wars, open their ports to the world, and support a liberal view of neutral rights"[13]  Clay felt that a program of Internal improvements {American Plan} would counter the attraction of the newly independent Spanish colonies.  Adams viewed Clays comments and actions an assault on the power of the executive branch, but "President Monroe worried less about the stability of the fragile union than about the security of a weak nation."[14]  Aware of the actions of the Congress of Vienna and the presence of the Holy alliance, a reference to Russia and France, American tried to find its voice on European intervention in the Western Hemisphere. Within the government of the United States two separate camps debated whether to adopt proactive policies or passive policies regarding the new worlds independent states and the level of action that would be needed to ensure stability within Americas borders.  Lewis goes on a length about the schemes of Adams and Monroe as the government looked for clarity and support from all corners.  Adams believed that congressional action was not necessary for recognition of the new democracies feeling instead that an executive proclamation was all that need be done.

     For America the pivotal year would be 1819.  That year would see several crisis situations that brought the proactive forces in American politics to the forefront.  First the Missouri Compromise of Henry Clay was passed by congress in order to prevent disunion over the expansion of slavery into the Louisiana territory.  As a result Clay rose to political prominence allowing him to become a voice for more aggressive policies.  Second the Transcontinental Treaty {Adams-Onis} was concluded and established American control over Florida and  drew a southern border at the Sabine, Red, and Arkansas  Rivers.  Monroe worked very hard to obtain the treaty deal which he felt would remove the danger of conflict with Spain that could lead to disunion. The third crisis was the Panic of 1819 which  Lewis says "eroded popular nationalism by clarifying the conflict of interest among sections, states, localities, economic sectors and individuals."[15] The Missouri Compromise and the panic of 1819 both highlighted and deepened the feelings of sectionalism that would ultimately caused disunion in 1861.  Lewis states that sectionalism began to paralyze the federal government between the years 1819 and 1821.  The only redeeming grace of this was that it "drew back together unionist policymakers who doubled their efforts to improve cross-sectional bonds and increase federal power and authority[16]

     Professor Lewis has written a book which makes the reader take a second look at the facts as they understood them in the past.  His work was well grounded in primary sources and he provides a detailed bibliography and a list of notes which make back checking the facts simple.  This work is well thought out and will provide a wealth of information that can be discussed by scholars of the early republic for years to come.

     Professor James E. Lewis Jr. received his B.A. in Government form the College of William and Mary in 1986, an M.A. in History from American University followed in 1988.  He earned a PhD. from the University of Virginia in 1994.  In  researching his background I found that much of  the material for this work was  first used in his Ph.D. Thesis Dissertation in 1994 

---

[1] Samuel Flagg Bemis Pulitzer Prize winning historian and biographer, former president of the AHA, works include: Pinckney's Treaty, John Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy, and The American Secretaries of State and Their Diplomacy.  

 

[2] John M. Belohlavek,  H-Net Reviewer,  James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood:  The United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

 

[3] James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood:  The United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

 

[4] James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood:  The United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. p.18

 

[5] ibid p.14

 

[6] Ibid p.24

[7] Ibid p.28

[8] ibid p.28

 

[9] Ibid p.70

[10] ibid p.82

 

[11] Ibid p.85

[12] Ibid p.102

 

[13] James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood:  The United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998 p.103

[14] Ibid p.103

[15] James L. Jr. Lewis. The American Union and the problem of Neighborhood:  The United State and the Collapse of the Spanish Empire. 1783 - 1829. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998 p. 128

[16] Ibid p.136

Comments on the occasion of my Retirement from the Navy

Comments on the occasion of my Retirement from the Navy

June 2, 1995

 

     Before continuing further with my comments, I want to thank each of you for being here today to celebrate my retirement.  I joined the Navy on October 7th, 1971, more than twenty-three years ago, and a great deal has happened since that day.  I can say with some assurance, after this long period of service, that I retire having enjoyed many wonderful experiences and the memories of serving with the finest people a man could ever hope to call shipmate.  Among the first things I would like to do is credit my success to those, I had the pleasure to serve with.

     My first command was the USS Leahy (DLG-16) and while serving onboard, I had the privilege of knowing several fine Chief Petty Officers.   William (Bill) Frankhowser was my first Chief and later Senior Chief Gary Gradel gave me guidance.  Senior Chief Gradel was particularly special.  He gave me a chance to fail and to later succeed.  Believe it or not, I was not always a perfect sailor.  Sometimes, I got into a little trouble but Senior Chief Gradel never lost interest in me and neither did my Department Head CDR George Womble, who believed that people deserve fair treatment and an opportunity to be successful.  CDR Womble is here today and it is with a sincere heart that I say; CDR Womble, I have never had an opportunity to thank you for your patience until now.  I would not have had a career if you had not been a patient but firm leader.  Thank you for making this day possible for me, I could never have succeeded without you.

     After leaving the Leahy, I served with other Chief Petty Officers who provided strong role models.  MSCM Ronald Herrick while stationed at NAVMARCORESCEN Folsom, PA,  OSC Jerry Batton on USS Nassau, and BMCM Richard Konopka on USS Wisconsin.  Each of these men left a little of themselves imprinted on me and from them, I learned the craft of being a Chief and leading men.  Today as I myself leave the Navy, I hope that I  leave behind some measure of these men in those that I have lead.

     My second task today is to speak about friendship.  If there is one thing, I have learned in my life its that the writer was correct in saying "No man is an island."  The need for human interaction, kindness, and friendship are universal and no man has been more blessed with friends than I.  There is an old saying in the Navy, that you don't have friends just naval acquaintances.  Well this may be true for some but not for me.  As I look around, I see the faces of friends all around me.  I have two particularly good friends who have worked very hard to make this ceremony perfect for me.  Scott and Mitch, I thank you for the efforts you have gone to, in order to make this a memorable day, and for putting up with me as the time for retirement came closer and the pressure grew.  Additionally, I have many other friends and family here with me.  The Four Winds Sunday School Class from Virginia Beach United Methodist Church who have been a rod to which, I clung.  You were always there when Barbara and I needed you.  When, I was deployed to the Persian Gulf for Desert Shield and Desert Storm you provided love, prayer, food, and comic relief (David Letterman's Top 10 lists).  I don't know what, I would have done without each of you and the little joys you brought to my life. 

      I have left the hardest and most emotion filled part of this until last.  I need to thank my family for the love and support, which they alone could provide.   I am not  an easy person to live with and they have always allowed me to be myself.  Tomorrow is my 17th wedding anniversary.  I love you Barbara and I realize that I could not be the man, I have become without you.  For my children Matthew and Carolyn, I will  no longer have to go away from you on cruises and deployments.  let us remember fondly those trips to the pier to see daddy off at 0600, but let us also look forward in the knowledge that I am home now and we are going to build a new set of memories beginning today.  To my sister, I say; Sis I am so happy that you were able to come here today and be part of this.  You were just a little girl, twelve years old, when I joined the navy and now you have grown into a beautiful and sensitive woman with whom I look forward to re-building family ties. 

Lastly and most importantly, I need to thank two people who are with me only in spirit.  I need to thank my father Ronald Day and mother Henrietta Day for having me as their son and giving me the ability to make a decent man of myself.  While you are gone from my sight; you are seldom far from my thoughts.

      I hope that you can be proud of me.

 

    Again, I want to thank you all for coming today


Written and presented by Mark R. Day. Copyright Mark R. Day 2 June 1995, all rights reserved.

Speech "Our Sacred Duty to the Dead must be to Remember Lest We Forget"

Message delivered on Saturday December 6th 2008 at Grave marker dedication ceremony for John Furgeson, Union Soldier, interred at the Old City Cemetery in Lynchburg, Va

Brothers, Sisters and Friends, today we met here as the representatives of the Sons of Union Veterans and the Allied Orders of the Civil War to dedicate a grave marker in memory and honor of John Furgeson, a loyal Union soldier who never return home from war.  After many years of lying in a grave marked simply J.F. Y.P. [ John Furgeson Yankee Prisoner] he now rests  remembered and unforgotten, having been finally identified to the world by his christian name.  Many have had a hand in returning John from being lost to history, and you have ensured that his sacrifice on the alter of freedom will be known, by this and future generations, with this simple marker; a token which will bind John's life to our own through the years to come. 

Until now only the stars have stood watch over him as he slept in life and death. They comforted him during the long nights on the battlefields of that great and terrible war and they illuminated his final resting place while he has  lain in the soil of the Virginia.   

Now we, who gather here today, are also charged to stand watch.  We are charged by the spirit of this man to never forget that he lived.  I pray that the cold temperatures and light snow we are experiencing at this ceremony etch a vivid  memory, that will remind us that it is our duty, as the sons of soldiers who experienced the life and death struggle of  war, to honor the memory of the men who stood shoulder to shoulder on the bloody fields of battle, and  gave, as President Lincoln so reverently said, the last full measure of devotion to their country. 

We like the stars must stand guard and cast a light into the world.  We must each seek to illuminate the memory of John and countless others in order to save them from the darkness of apathy and obscurity.

Yes John and his companions in arms have passed from mortal view, but it is now our sacred duty to perpetuate his memory and the memory of all who fought to defend the Great country we call America and the principles upon which it was  created.

 

Written and presented by Mark R. Day, copyright by Mark R. Day 25 September 2012, all rights reserved

Poem "60"

60 !

 

The number jumps off the page!

 

60 !!

 

What to make of such a number; what does it mean!

 

 

60 !!!

 

Is it Large, Is it Old!

 

 

60 !!!!

 

Is it the beginning or is it the end?

 

 

60 !!!!!

 

What message does it send?

 

 

 

Written By Mark R. Day on the occassion of his 60th Birthday 28 May 2012.  Copyright Mark R. Day 28 May 2012, all rights reserved

Poem " The Test"

The Test

I watch them as they strain to write down  scattered and fragmented thoughts, which they hope will sound profound.

All are stone faced, expressionless at the start; then some purse their lips and others tug at sleeves

They struggle with the words as their hand moves swiftly, racing over the blank white sheet, which endlessly stretches before them.

They force themselves by sheer strength of will; to dredge up from their deepest soul a heartfelt testimony

So innocent and pure their thoughts as they strive to create the perfect phrase, but time their ever present enemy passes ever quickening its pace.

Then the facade begins to crumble and they are once again human beings resigned to the vagaries of fate.

 

Written by Mark R. Day on May 8th 2012 conceived while watching my AP U.S. History Students take the AP Exam.  Copyright Mark R. Day 23 September 2012, all rights reserved

Photo "Bridge of Honor, Bridge of Death"

 

Photo taken by Mark R. Day of the Lower Bridge "Burnside's Bridge" Antietam National Battlefield on a rainy Sunday morning in late August 2012.  Copyright by Mark R. Day 22 September 2012, all rights reserved

 

History of the Bridge

 

 Constructed in 1836 this limestone and granite bridge played a key role in the September 1862 Battle of Antietam during the American Civil War when a small number of Confederate soldiers from Georgia for several hours held off repeated attempts by elements of the union Army to take the bridge by force and inflicted more than 500 casualties on the 51st New York and the 11th Connecticut. 

The bridge now bears the name of the Union Commander, Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside.

Photo "Serenity"

 

 

Photo of Coveville Presbyterian Church taken by Mark R. Day using a Canon power Shot SX100IS on 22 September at approximately 9:30am.  Copyright by Mark R. Day 22 September 2012, all rights reserved

Thoughts on the Struggle between Liberalism and Conservativism in a Constituional Government

Some thoughts on the Constitution and the state of the American nation on Constitution Day 2012

     I have always held that my values are the same as those of the founding fathers.  I believe in Republican government, the rule of law, and constitutional principles.  Further, I believe in individual rights to free speech, religious freedom, and equality in the eyes of the law for all. 

     Each of these ideas and the values they represent were born in late seventeenth and early eighteenth century Europe, during  the "Age of Enlightenment," as the creative thoughts of men with names like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Locke.   Our fortune is that the founders of the American Republic had the foresight to adopt these ideas as the basis of the constitutional government they created for the United States of America in 1787. 

     In America these idealistic "liberal" principles became fact rather than rhetoric and our founding fathers created a country that was the first to allow men to control their own destiny.  Each of these enlightenment idea's increased the power of the people rather than the power of the government and set limits on the governments ability to intrude in the lives of Americans.  However, from the beginning there was a troubling question which Americans have struggled with for over 225 years.  That question, simply stated, is how much freedom is too much freedom or put another way how much liberalism will be allowed in our generally conservative society.

     Our Constitution was written in that long hot summer of 1787 to define what level of liberalism and individual rights would be acceptable in the new republic.  The Constitutional Convention had been born out of fear that the country, in a constant state of rebellion, would be destabilized and destroyed.  Daniel Shea, a Revolutionary War Hero, had lead Massachusetts farmers in a failed uprising against the government of that state over the issue of taxation.  Conservative forces in the landowning and business classes saw Shea's Rebellion as a clear signal that limits had to be set on individual liberties to prevent continued instability.  If the country was going to survive and prosper a strong national government was necessary to prevent internal discord, defend against foreign invasion, and ensure the free flow of commerce.  The Federalist, lead by Alexander Hamilton, argued for governmental powers that would regulate trade and commerce, provide for a common currency, provide for an executive officer to enforce the laws, and contain an independent court to settle differences between the many states of the Union.  In opposition the Anti-Federalist, leaded by George Mason and Patrick Henry, argued that a strong government would destroy individual and state rights and proposed that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution as a protection for the people and states from abusive laws.

     Over the years since that original argument took place; these two forces conservativism and liberalism have seen their influence over national policy  rise and fall.  At times they have inflamed our passions as the ebb and flow of conservative or liberal influence impacted on the lives of individuals and in some cases the rights of states. Tensions between the two forces lead to the creation of political parties and  laws such as the Alien and Sedition Acts or the Embargo of 1807 earned the disdain of the people.  In some cases the debate lead to open conflict, as in the case of the American Civil War, which divided the country and brought brother to kill brother.

     Today these forces of liberalism and conservativism are once more engaged in a struggle to define the future of our nation.  Many Americans would say that there must be a clear winner in the struggle this time.   I that is true a question must be asked and answered; would the nation be better off with such a winner take all scenario?   If we look to the founding fathers for advice in answering the question the best analogy would be found in the Virginia Statues of Religious Freedom, written by Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson was concerned with the influence and power of the Anglican Church in Virginia.  At issue were the ideas of religious toleration and the separation of church and state.  When writing the Virginia Declaration of religious Freedom Jefferson did not seek to destroy the church but rather he saw the need to limit its power over the people of Virginia.  Many Virginians  did not practice Anglicanism yet were required to pay a tax to support it and even worse failure to belong to the Anglican Church meant a denial of voting rights.  Jefferson understood that the Anglican Church was necessary to the society but he would not accept its interference in the rights of individuals to practice their own beliefs or vote.  Jefferson observed that there was a thin veil of separation which existed between the church and the state, but he also realized that these institutions were mutually dependent and symbiotic entities which could not stand alone.  The Church needed the government to ensure its existence and the government need the church to teach moral values to its citizens.  Jefferson's very liberal document, the Statute of Religious freedom, ultimately ended the Churches power to deny individual rights but it also stated that the government had no power over the church therefore preserving the conservative moral force that the church held in the society.

In modern America liberalism and conservativism are and must be kept conjoined or yoked in a manner similar to Jefferson's concept of church and state.  American liberty is maintained by two compelling and powerful forces, which act as the opposite ends of the fulcrum.  Like the church and the state liberalism and conservativism are mutually dependent and symbiotic entities.  There can be no true individual freedom without liberalism, but liberalism must be balanced by an equal amount of conservativism to ensure order and stability.  failure to maintain that balance is the surest way to destroy the nation and the principles that it was founded upon.


Written by Mark R. Day 17 September 2012, copyright by Mark R. Day, all rights reserved 17 September 2012