Five Important American Events That Happened on July 4th

July 4th is the day we celebrate our independence, despite the fact that the actual act declaring independence passed the Continental Congress two days earlier.

Today, it's a day of fireworks, barbecues, and celebration.  In the past, however, it also was remembered for humiliating defeat, sad passings, and decisive victories.  Each involved one of America's most respected figures.

Fort Necessity at Great Meadows.  Here in a clearing in western Pennsylvania began a world war that transformed the British Empire and gave an American icon his first taste of military responsibility.

Europe had divided into two camps: Britain and her small club of allies against France and the most formidable empires on the Continent.  Any spark could set off a war covering the globe.  France and the British colony of Virginia both claimed the Forks of the Ohio, now Pittsburgh.  Virginia's colonial government sent 19 year old Major George Washington to set their claim on more solid ground.

Washington found Fort Duquesne already built at the forks, watched his Indian allies butcher a French patrol, then went to Great Meadow and built one of the worst fortifications ever constructed.  It sat near a source of water, but was surrounded by high ground on all sides, had large gaps in the wall, and had treelines within shooting distance.  The French could fire into it all day while hiding behind the massive virgin timber.

The Virginians fled the fort on July 4th.  French troops caught up, forced Washington to sign humiliating terms of capitulation, then sent him home to Virginia who immediately put him to work . . . building forts. 

July 4, 1754.  Proof that failure teaches better than success. 

One of the greatest friendships/rivalries in the history of this, or any other country.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

They knew each other for nearly 50 years, although no one would say they spent that long as friends.  Adams' careful editing of the Declaration of Independence chased Jefferson from the Continental Congress into a multi-year pout.

Jefferson's self-imposed exile eventually ended.  Both men spent the post war period struggling to represent the United States (one nation or 13, many asked before passage of the Constitution.)  Both Adams and Jefferson earned more respect as individuals than they could sell for their country.  Their intellects differed, Adams more pragmatic, Jefferson more idealistic, but they complemented each other at this point even as they mainly interacted through correspondence.

Later, Jefferson and Adams clashed.  Not so much when Jefferson served as a restive secretary of state and Adams an ignored vice president, but  certainly when both ran for president.  One of the few major flaws in the founding document gave second place in the Electoral College the vice presidency.  The Federalist Adams had to constantly fend off attacks from his own vice president in the highly partisan press of the time.

Both men ran again in 1800.  Reason turned some of the more vicious partisan statements into campaign ads. Their mutual hatred lasted for well over a decade after.

Eventually hard feelings softened.  The two preeminent American intellects of the early 19th century sat on the political trash heap, rarely consulted.  Adams' son John Quincy and Jefferson's political son James Madison assumed the stage.  Between the two men emerged a remarkable series of letters about a wide spectrum of subjects.  Much of the correspondence involved questions, answers, and responses to answers.  

Intellectual sharing grew into a fully reborn and close friendship that lasted until July 4th, 1826.  As Adams lay on his deathbed, his final words were, Jefferson still lives.

But Adams was wrong.  His former bitter rival and close friend had died the same day.

One thing often forgotten about the Civil War, the Union did not see its victory as inevitable until the very end.  Northern superiority in so many fields could not easily defeat a fully mobilized Confederacy fighting on its own soil.  

The Union in 1862 had come close to capturing the Confederate capital of Richmond, but had to retreat despite being in sight of its goal.  Antietam was technically a victory for the Union in the fall of the year, but left Lincoln frustrated because General McClellan seemed uninterested in finishing off Lee's army.

Meanwhile, social cohesion in the South deteriorated.  Most of the Confederate States saw their ability to enforce authority break down in the back country.  Lee knew that European help would not come and that the South would lose a war of attrition.  He gambled on a master stroke: striking north.

Meanwhile, Ulysses S. Grant hammered his own war of attrition against Mississippi Valley strongholds.  Like Lincoln, he understood the Confederacy would only lose when its armies were destroyed.  He ground away at strong points that the South felt compelled to defend, like Vicksburg.

Lee's three day assault on fortified Union lines near Gettysburg cost his army.  The best of his beloved Virginians died on the third day and his Army of Northern Virginia staggered home on July 4th.

Grant surrounded Vicksburg, last Confederate held position on the Mississippi.  Over several weeks, his tightening grip strangled Confederate resistance.  When Vicksburg ran out of victuals, its commander proposed surrender.  Grant refused to accept until the 4th of July.

Pattern of Tyranny: Hugo Chavez, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Bill Clinton

What do each of those individuals have in common? Each of them over the past several years has been associated with term limits abolition for presidents.

Hugo Chavez already has the coveted "president for life" job. Argentinian President Fernandez de Kirchner this week seemed to float a trial balloon in her country about amending their "outdated" constitution. Bill Clinton suggested that the term limit amendment be lifted in this country recently.

The executive branch has an advantage over the legislative in this key area. At the most, every eight years, the executive gets swept clean of its political officers. Even presidents from the same party tend to want to have their own people, avoiding the messes caused when John Adams and Harry Truman held over officials. Turnover in office reduces the amount of corruption that can settle in.

Congress operates without term limits. Invariably, human nature takes over when a person in power gets comfortable. They cut corners, ignore rules here and there, and probably are as surprised as anyone else if they end up scandalized.

President Washington feared more than most the concept of "president for life." He saw it as upsetting the balance established between the branches of government, leading to the establishment of what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority." The president has the most to gain by somehow purchasing or otherwise appeasing the majority at the expense of the minority. And the majority rarely see infringements upon their rights.

Presidential term limits are necessary for the continuance of good government. Congress should consider them as well.

The Decline and Fall of Our Heroes

Has anyone else noticed the slow and gradual removal from our culture of heroes?

It first comes from the overuse of the word "hero." A "hero" does something remarkable, using their skills to achieve something positive, often at great risk to themselves. I don't mind calling police officers heroes. I don't mind calling fire fighters heroes. They do put their lives on the line daily. At what point does basketball become a life and death occupation though?

Great individuals need to be remembered and celebrated. Our schools do a terrific job remembering Martin Luther King Jr. He was a true martyr to the cause of individual rights. I do find it puzzling that students know who Martin Luther King was, but not Martin Luther who offered himself to be burned at the stake because he believed Christians had the right to freedom of conscience.

Probably the worst offender is "Presidents' Day." We used to celebrate Lincoln and Washington's Birthday separately until the universal adoption of Martin Luther King Day. Then governments felt three holidays in such a short period of time was too many (an exception being Virginia who already celebrated Robert E. Lee's birthday at the same time, and still do. The two are not so far apart as one might imagine.) Washington and Lincoln got lumped together.

Washington's Birthday was at one point a more important holiday than the 4th of July. More than anyone, he symbolized both the fighting spirit and the political wisdom of our Founding Fathers. He served as hero not just to Americans, but also to colonial peoples everywhere seeking independence. Every leader of a would be sovereign nation aspired to be a Washington for his people. Most failed to meet a standard set so high. Now Washington gets lumped in with the good, bad, and the ugly of presidencies.

Are all presidents heroes? Is the drunken incompetent Andrew Johnson the equal of George Washington?

Left wingers do not believe in heroes outside of their own kind. They tend to hate the idea that an individual can make a difference and change history for the better. History to them is a series of social movements, not alterable at all by the actions of willful, inspired men and women. They truly see little value in celebrating Washington or any other American hero and that is why they have labored so long and hard to eliminate him and other true heroes from our schoolbooks and curriculums. Martin Luther King Jr. gets to stay because it is inconvenient for the leftists to take on a major interest group.

Another left wing concept is postmodern philosophy that emphasizes that all opinions and points of view are equally valid. Postmodernism says that Jackson Pollock dropping pain onto a canvas from a three story building roof is equal to da Vinci and Michelangelo's greatest works. It says that Washington is as much villain as hero because someone, somewhere sees him as an evil usurping slaveowner rather than a symbol of liberty. Left wing academics worship in the religion of postmodernism; it's the only creed they accept on faith alone.

Being aware of these people and their intentions for our culture and country prepares us to battle them. We need to exalt the memories of Washington, Lincoln, Grant, George and John Marshall, George Patton, Andrew Carnegie, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, etc. because they did great things for a great nation. Even Lee and Stonewall Jackson stood for an ideal of rights that is part of our experience and national identity.

Celebrate heroes. Teach our children about great Americans so that they believe they can achieve the same things. Then teach about other heroes from Britain, the rest of Europe, the Christian and Jewish faiths. You need to teach about these people or risk having children never hear about them at all.

Beneath His Dignity, An Epic Fail

George Washington was one day walking down a street in the capital. One of his old friends, Governeur Morris, had just arrived and was anxious to see Washington, but first saw the Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton pointed out the president and encouraged Morris to walk over, slap him on the back, and greet him with enthusiasm. Morris did so. Washington stopped, slowly turned his head to face Morris, and froze him with a stare like pure liquid nitrogen. He then coldly continued his walk.



Washington had a very conscious idea of the image of a president. He strove daily to present the image of simplicity and dignity. He required no uniformed guards, bands, or announcement. Washington believed that if a president was worthwhile, people would know when one entered the room. He also remained very strict about what actions lay beneath the dignity of a president.



I am positive that George Washington would react with rage at the idea of a sitting Chief Magistrate of the United States kowtowing to a group of foreigners to get games played somewhere in America. I do not care if the Prime Minister of Britain or the President of Russia has done it, we should keep high expectations of our head of state. Would Queen Elizabeth beg for Olympic games? I think not!



Let us, though, for one second assume that begging foreigners to allow us to spend uncounted millions and go farther into debt is an appropriate task for an American president. Surely that is a task reserved for when times are good and burdens are light. As a person with family fighting in the Middle East, it insults me that Obama went to Denmark to flash his smile, speak about his dream of a Chicago Olympics, and make an "oh by the way" stop to meet with his generals. A smart politician would have played up the meeting with commanders and made the Olympic stop secondary. Otherwise, people might get the idea you care more about the Olympics than the sacrifices of our fighting men and allies.



Then, if your Olympic pitch fails, you do not look like you spent a lot of money to travel across the ocean and waste everyone's time. Also the IOC doesn't get peeved when you do not stick around to watch all the other presenters who courteously watched you. After all, if you are fighting a war and care about those fighting it as well as the outcome, people understand if you have to leave to meet the generals.



But Obama didn't. As usual his priorities got skewed, he failed to think things through, and ended up looking stupid again. Not saying he is stupid, but he has not learned much political competence since entering office.



As the kids say these days, Olympic campaign 2009 will go down in history as . . .



Epic Fail.

Parastatals Are Always Problematic

Parastatals are corporate entities either partly controlled by both the public and private sector, or wholly owned by the government. We see them most often in Third World countries, but the United States has seen these combination from time to time in its own history.

In the 1790s the Washington Administration established the Bank of the United States. It served as one of the rare examples of an effectively run parastatal because the government allowed its private partners substantial latitude in its operations (when antagonistic presidents were not trying to eliminate it, that is.) This occurred due to the fact that even Federalists, who supported an assertive federal government, believed in limited government relative to modern liberals.

Modern parastatals include Amtrak and the old West Virginia State ABC stores (in other words, the liquor store.) Neither one turned a profit. How can you not profit from a liquor store chain?!?! Government can find a way, obviously. Like parastatals in the Third World, corruption reared its ugly head with the state liquor store system. Government owned businesses are especially vulnerable to the job ambitions of younger relatives of powerful people. In Africa parastatals employ many hundreds or even thousands more than necessary because people get hired for the wrong reason and cannot be let go.

Britain nationalized many key industries after World War II, only to find that increased costs made it uncompetitive. When government runs business, business decisions become political. It is hard to cut costs in such an environment. As a result, the government run industries hemorrhaged money for decades while producing lower quality products.

Government, excuse me, General Motors now finds itself surviving via a deal with the devil. The White House now controls their operations and if history is any guide, the government will run the company into the ground while subsidizing it with cash from time to time. GM should have split itself into two or three companies with familiar brands that could better maneuver and compete in a fast changing market.

Meanwhile Ford sales are still rising and it has become the belle of the ball of the auto industry. It also has a stronger claim on GM's traditional markets due to its remaining a fully capitalist enterprise.

As soon as the GOP returns to the White House it must undo this Faustian bargain and liberate General Motors.

Dead White Men

For the past couple of decades now, many in the world of academic history have shunned the study of what left wing professors call "dead white men." Instead they try to seek historical truths by looking at the lives of the masses. Peasants count more than kings, servants more than presidents.

In some fields, they are called "structuralists." They study patterns of large segments of people. "Intentionalists" adhere to the more traditional studies of history, emphasizing the effects of leaders and innovators. They believe that the actions of some men and women resonate more than others. George Washington had more impact than a Continental Army private in their eyes.

Predictably, left wingers embrace structuralism and blast the idea that "dead white men" had any importance at all (of course Elizabeth I of Britain and Catherine the Great of Russia are among these figures.)

My question to left wingers is this: if leaders had no effect on the past, if history was shaped entirely by commoners, then why get so bent out of shape over George W. Bush or treat Obama like some kind of messiah? After all if George Washington or Winston Churchill were not worthy of study because masses make history, why was Bush such a demon?

And just think of how much better off we'd have been if the country were founded by "wise Latina women" who according to Obama's choice for Supreme Court, have naturally better decision making skills than any white men.

Lincoln Ranked First Among Presidents By Panel of Sixty Five Historians

Although not surprising that they picked Abraham Lincoln, frankly they got it dead wrong.

There is one single president that transcends the office even while defining it. No president faced the kinds of challenges overcome by this man. No other president comes close to him when one considers leadership ability, long term effect of his presidency, or any other standard of leadership.

It may be unfashionable to speak the obvious, but George Washington is and will always be the greatest president in United States history.

Before Washington there was no office of the president. The Constitution offered some vague details, but little in the way of guidance. Washington's generation had no contemporary examples to serve as models either. King George III? Thanks, but no thanks. The office of Prime Minister was too tied to the legislative branch for Washington's taste (Congress tended to grate on the Father of our Country's nerves.) Washington looked somewhat to the consuls of the Roman Republic, who held many of the same powers. Most of all he looked to his own common sense.

Washington strove to create balance. He needed balance in foreign affairs. A vulnerable infant nation in a world of rapacious Great Powers could not succumb to any one side, but needed to maintain a dignified neutrality. A nation with no economic growth in 1789 needed to balance the agricultural interest with his own vision of America growing into a commercial empire. He had to balance his attention between his two friends and colleagues Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. Most importantly he balanced the need to enhance the respect of the people for the office of president while maintaining an air of republican simplicity.

In short, Washington had to define the office of president and also went a long way towards defining what the United States would be in its distant future. Lincoln was a great president, but no one has ever overcome the kinds of challenges faced by Washington so successfully.

*******************************************************************

Predictably the list of presidents rated George W. Bush very low, even below Carter (who actually dropped since the last ranking.) Seven years of prosperity and security combined with a new respect for the United States around the world did not impress the historians. Of course none of them brought a sliver of bias to the table.

Surprisingly, Ronald Reagan, who used to be placed in the middle or near the bottom, reached number ten. George H. W. Bush, once criticized and ranked poorly because he left Saddam Hussein in place in 1991, rose to number 18.

Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, James Madison, William McKinley, James K. Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower are my top ten.

Why is Theodore Roosevelt as low as he is? The more I read about his domestic policies, the more squeamish I get. Yes the government needed to expand some regulatory powers, but his tended to follow his own whim rather than the rule of law. Were it not for a wildly successful foreign policy, I'd send him lower. I prefer McKinley who had a strong foreign policy and a more limited ideal of government power. Truman goes before Reagan by a hair because he recognized the Soviet threat before many others and challenged it almost from the beginning. James Madison was flexible enough to alter his position during the War of 1812, casting ideology aside in the greater effort to beat the British. I left out Jefferson because his foreign policy led directly to economic disaster. He also used the authority of his office to financially crush political rivals.

George W. Bush to me is definitely in the top 20. You cannot lay the current financial crisis at his feet since he tried to get both Republican and Democratic congresses to address the various issues that caused the problems. It would be like blaming Isaiah for the Babylonians conquering Judah. It's not his fault that nobody listened. The second Bush will climb as we get further from his presidency.

Triumph of the Shrill

In the 1930s Leni Riefenstahl became the filmaker tapped to document the political rise of Adolf Hitler. Tremendously talented, she crafted an image in her Triumph of the Will for the new leader that distracted Germans from his bizarre beliefs and buffoonery and manufactured a vision of a powerful, wise, all knowing savior. Joseph Goebbels masterminded this image production and helped by staging spectacles. The larger the stadium, the more attendees, the more references to German and classical history and culture, the better Hitler could appear. In other words Goebbels and Riefenstahl sought to clothe the inadequacies of a lunatic in the robes of a demigod.

The 2008 Democratic Convention is no Nazi spectacle and Obama is no Hitler. This attempt at savior manufacturing looks more like a Mel Brooks parody of Riefenstahl's work. You half expect to see "PREZ" emblazoned in white on Obama's back. The goal is to unite the loud, neurotic, Bush haters with moderate and loyal Democrats in a last ditch effort to derail the McCain train.

Fortunately, Americans rarely accept this kind of stage handling in their politics. Anything so packaged raises suspicion in the eyes of most American voters. Only George Washington and, to a much lesser extent, Franklin Roosevelt ever enjoyed demigod type popularity and loyalty. Washington actively shunned any material manifestation of his authority, preferring to maintain tones of republican simplicity.

In 2008 the choice is clear. In McCain we have an accomplished man who acts in Washington's mold of republican simplicity. In Obama we have a demagogue seeking to win the presidency through the triumph of the shrill.

Dignity

During George Washington's first term as president, his old friend Governor Morris of New York came to the capital city to visit. Washington's close adviser, Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, met Morris on the street. Morris asked where he could find Washington, who happened to be strolling away from them down the street as they spoke. Hamilton told Morris that President Washington would like nothing better than for his old pal to come up behind him, slap him on the back and jovially greet him.

Morris did just that, earning a stare from Washington that must have frozen his very soul. Washington then walked on without a word. When he looked back at Hamilton, he saw his fellow New Yorker laughing uproariously at the practical joke he just pulled. George Washington understood that as president an individual must show not only ability, but also dignity.

Where has that dignity gone? The Democratic presidential candidates seem to have lost all pretense to it, subjecting themselves to online debacles. Questions are asked in ridiculous ways. Certainly the famous "boxers or briefs" question posed to Clinton was a milestone in the loss of respect for the presidential office, then again so was the scandal of Watergate.

That being said, dignified is as dignified does. Despite the avalanche of satire, most of it extremely trite and shallow, directed at the current president, few can argue that George W. Bush does not handle himself with dignity. He expects respect and gets it as well as any president in the past hundred years. The Republican frontrunner's Fred Thompson and Rudolph Giuliani have acted similarly, not exposing themselves to silly requests. Credit Hillary Clinton with at least looking uncomfortable in the situations in which the Democrats expect her to perform.

Certainly we must expect our presidents to conduct themselves with strength. We must also understand that a certain amount of personal dignity is necessary to maintain respect. These men and women are not here to sell used cars, but to lead the free world. Republicans understand this, Democrats at this point do not.

How Democracy Dies

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez took another step towards the final strangulation of democracy in his country this week. He announced a proposal to eliminate presidential term limits and the rubber stamp National Assembly will undoubtedly approve enthusiastically. Venezuela's people will again suffer from Chavez's quest for absolute and permanent power.

Wealthy people, private enterprise, and the middle class definitely suffer. A business climate requires the rule of law and protection of private property. Without these guarantees, investment dwindles and people lose opportunities. The poor suffer as well. They may appreciate the crumbs thrown their way by the government, but the opportunity for real advancement (except through the government) disappears. Even though Venezuela sits atop a major oil pool, the state ownership of much of that resource means that the private sector must kowtow to Chavez. One wonders if Jimmy Carter received a gift basket for his certification of the rigged vote that assured Chavez of continued power.

Term limits have generally defined the limits of our presidential system. George Washington rejected pleas for a third term because he wanted to avoid the precedent of a man serving until he died. Washington died in 1799, two years before his possible third term would have ended. Franklin Roosevelt broke the third term barrier due to an unusual national emergency and served until his 1945 death. Since then a constitutional amendment bars third terms.

America benefits from this limitation. The strain of the job wears down the holder of the job mentally and physically. Few leaders have the kind of political and state responsibilities that the American president has. Early Roman Emperors who shared their authority with other bodies provide a parallel. However the immense power drove many of them mad within their first decade of rule. Being Caesar for too long can mentally unbalance a person, or physically destroy them (like FDR.)

Chavez has few political worries except for a bullet in the head. However he presents a danger to his people and to US influence in the region. Hopefully his murder of Venezuelan democracy will inspire other Latin Americans to hold even tighter to their freedoms. Conversely he has grown into an inspirational figure for loony leftists such as the mayor of Macon, Georgia who requested a partnership with him. Does he think he can inspire revolution here? Likely. His activities require watching.

Selling Heritage in the Potomac Highlands

It is no secret that the West Virginia economy relies heavily upon tourism. Credit our state government also for exploring innovative ways to bring more people and their full wallets to the Mountain State. The state division of tourism website discusses the future of "voluntourism" and also mentions a conference held last February to promote "agritourism."

Let us suggest a tried and true no brainer approach to marketing West Virginia as a vacation destination. Our erring sisters to the east whom we kicked out in 1861 have carefully crafted over the years a huge Civil War based tourism industry. Virginia hosts untold numbers of visitors to see reconstructions and remnants of that famous conflict. That and the high ratings for the History Channel prove that Americans love learning about war. They will also spend money to see heritage in person.

From before the French and Indian War until "Mad" Anthony Wayne's victory over the Shawnee, western Virginia served as a shield protecting the cities and tobacco plantations to the east. Virginia Governor Dinwiddie in 1756 ordered Colonel George Washington to oversee the construction of frontier forts. Many of these appeared in the Potomac Highlands section and some even survive as modern towns. Fort Ashby appeared in 1755, joined by Fort Defiance and Waggoner's Fort (also known as "Buttermilk") as well as many others. Each one of these installations was manned by some of the toughest and strongest men and women in colonial America. Each fort and each individual stationed therein has a compelling story to share if only people come and listen.

Some communities take advantage of their heritage. Point Pleasant reconstructed Fort Randolph and created a "Battle Days" festival that draws substantial crowds. The Potomac Highlands section of West Virginia ought to combine to form a plan to promote the region's frontier history.