Sunday, February 9, 2020

America’s Reform to Responsible Human Independence


Complex history is often obscured by popularly accepted labels affixed to events. Joseph Loconte, in “Two Revolutions for Freedom,”[1] presents scholarship about the American Revolution for independence from England, 1765-1783, as though America extended the English Revolution of 1688[2] and rejected the French Revolution of 1789.[3] The first replaced a Catholic king with his Protestant daughter, planting the seeds for “democracy” under the Church of England, and the second established a republican government with continual public disruption and rejection of churches. Loconte, perhaps to promote the Judeo-Christian God in competition with whatever-God-is, helps obscure the human repressed revolution that the U.S. offered on June 21, 1788: responsible human independence. 

The 1774 Confederation of States was not practical, and on September 17, 1787 framers proposed a Union of states to be disciplined by self-disciplined people. The framers considered political opinions from the world, especially those of the controversial 1774 “founders.” Only 39 of the 55 the U.S. Constitution’s framers signed the U.S. Preamble with its amendable articles. When the people of 9 of 13 states ratified the U.S. Preamble, the USA was legally established as a global nation. Ratification was predicated on the unfortunate promise that the first Congress would amend the constitution with an English-like Bill of Rights modified to colonial American traditions. The U.S. Preamble, America’s political revolution, proposes freedom-from oppression in order to encourage responsible human independence. Proprietary language represses the U.S. people’s proposition.

England, France, and the war for American independence from Europe


                European countries evolved in wars with dominance moving from country to country. Religious power influenced political conflict. England and France imposed their frequent enmity onto America and there dominated other colonizers such as Spain and Holland. War labels are so confusing it is a burden to learn European conflicts that eventually influenced America’s war for independence. Victory empowered an American proposition for responsible human independence to the continuum of living citizens that has been repressed by conservation of colonial tradition.

Magna Carta,[4] in 1215 in England, was a charter of political rights that the king granted to the church and landowners but not to the working and artisan classes. A pope annulled Magna Carta, but Parliament resurrected it several times. In the 16th century, the Church of England rejected Rome’s “authority.”[5] The Church of England took over the Catholic dioceses.[6] In the revolution of 1688, the Church of England adopted tolerance for Protestantism and established several principles for human opportunity and protection yet maintained human classification. John Locke wrote about church-state partnership and English tolerance. Colonial Americans from England considered themselves Englishmen until they rebelled starting in 1763, replaced colonies with states in 1774, declared war for political independence in 1776, and won global recognition as 13 free and independent states in 1783. In 1788, the proposal for responsible human independence was ratified.

While Spain was first to settle in N. America (in St. Augustine in 1565), England dominated France and Holland in settling the eastern seaboard north of Florida. The first English settlement was at Jamestown, VA, 1607 under the First Virginia Charter.[7] The colonists were English subjects. The first French colony was Quebec, in 1608.[8] Spain, England, and France competed for interior land that became the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. France conducted the “French and Indian Wars” against England and loyal colonists. France ceded to England the contested lands in the 1763 Treaty of Paris.[9]

The final battle in the American war for independence, at Yorktown, VA in 1781, was strategically and militarily dominated by France with the continental army’s assistance against England. The treaty whereby England agreed that the 13 states were free and independent was signed at Versailles in 1783 and titled, “The Treaty of Paris.” The 13 free and independent states ratified the Treaty of Paris on January 14, 1784.

Thus, beginning in 1784, European if not global nations recognized 13 free and independent states by name on the eastern seaboard, east of the Mississippi and north of Florida. Internally, they remained the 1774 Confederation of States until June 21, 1788: 9 states legally formed a union of states, the USA.

In France, on July 14, 1789, worker-rioters stormed the Bastille, [10] beginning the bloody French Revolution. It’s development had little to no American influence. George Washington promoted the fact that the Atlantic Ocean shielded America from European wars, internal or not.

So far, we have reviewed the English Revolution of 1688—a preservation of Christianity in governance, the American victory for independence from England in 1783, and the French Revolution of 1789---an establishment of secular governance. Of the 1688 “Glorious Revolution” John Locke wrote of representative government to protect “life, liberty, and property.” The American Declaration of Independence extols “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The motto of the French Revolution is “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” Especially regarding the French Revolution, “liberty” can suggest “license” or bloody entitlement. There remains the 1788-ratified American revolution for responsible human independence that Congress took the liberty to repress in 1789. It’s been repressed ever since.

America proposes reform to discipline of by and for the people


                In the summer of 1787, 55 delegates from 12 of 13 free and independent states, negotiating to strengthen the founders’ 1774 Confederation of U.S. States, designed a republic predicated on both individual and collective public discipline to secure responsible human independence to living citizens. The proposition was stated in the U.S. Preamble with the amendable articles that complete the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Some of the sixteen delegates who did not sign the document on September 17, 1787 opposed the absence of allegiance to whatever-God-is; some opposed a Union of states rather than the confederation; some opposed “We the People of the United States” as the subject of the preamble’s proposition, and the people had not nourished the psychological maturity to accept being human let alone egocentrically embrace responsible human independence. In human independence, the individual admits to himself or herself that whatever-God-is may not conform to his or her God. I doubt many of the 39 signers grasped the civic, civil, and legal power of the U.S. Preamble.

                Like other abstract factual-evidence that encourages personal autonomy, the U.S. Preamble must be interpreted by the individual citizen. And, like traffic violations, ignorance of the preamble’s proposition does not shield the dissident citizen from subjugation to civic, civil, or legal imposition. Here is the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[11]

These words are familiar yet widely neglected in the USA. Some people on hearing the first four words erroneously think the sentence is from the Declaration of Independence and the subject, We the People of the United State, is an abstract entity from the past with no powers in the present.

                The benefits (blessings) of liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity,” applies to us as the framing generation’s posterity. In other words, living citizens are the “ourselves” to our descendants and future immigrants. This easily overlooked point may be regarded as “self-evident” or, as I prefer respecting human discovery of actual reality, the-literal-truth. After truth, your truth, my truth, God’s truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth, and the-objective-truth, there remains actual reality, discernable by the ineluctable evidence and, in perfect perception, humanly approaching the-literal-truth. Thus, responsibility for the entity We the People of the United States rests with the continuum of “ourselves and our Posterity.” Each citizen should own his or her interpretation of the U.S. Preamble.

                My interpretation today of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition for my way of civic citizenship is:  We the People of the United States egocentrically (selfishly) consider, communicate, collaborate, and connect to establish and maintain 6 public disciplines to living citizens: integrity, justice, peace, strength, prosperity, and responsible human independence. Since the standard for none of the 6 disciplines is specified, it seems that the extension and depth of citizens practicing the proposition monitors progress toward individual happiness with civic, civil, and legal integrity. Most governments demand submission to arbitrary goals for the person, and so far, political regimes in the USA seem to use coercion and force to that end. Under the U.S. Preamble and pursuit of statutory justice, our generation has an achievable better future.

I share my interpretation hoping that fellow citizens will notice an improvement and suggest it to me. Additionally, I hope to encourage fellow citizens to establish their individual interpretations of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

                Interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition is hard to take in 2020. Hard to take, because existing cultures do not encourage and coach children and beyond to prepare and intend to live a complete human life. Hard to take because the young slowly, if ever, perceive the personal benefits of pursuing integrity above nourishing human appetites. Hard to take because social democrats have dominated U.S. higher education for a half century, inculcating dominant struggles for identity politics. More about that in future essays, or study interesting issues on your own. Now, I want to list some of the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth that was suggested to the constitution’s framers, whether they could articulate it or not.

Some of the-objective-truth was suggested before 1787


                Several ideas suggested by the Greeks and other Europeans about 2,400 years ago were evident to some of the framers, whether framers shared their awareness or not. First, the civic citizen behaves for equity under statutory justice. Second, the civic human neither initiates nor tolerates harm to or from any person or association. Third, the human being humbly accepts that the God of his or her hope and comfort does not dominate whatever-God-is and ought not be presented to fellow humans for evaluation and consideration: discussion if agreed to, but no imposition. Fourth, it seems whatever-God-is assigned to humans, both individually and collectively, the responsibility for public discipline. Fifth, from Italy, as cultures have developed, belief in a personal God rather than whatever-God-is makes it difficult for an individual to accept human individual power, energy, and authority (HIPEA) to develop integrity or to accept a civic agreement while pursuing personal happiness. I perceive these principles in my interpretation of the U.S. Preamble and feel no need to consult the framers for affirmation; I benefit from another 230 years of human discovery and so not consign my integrity to other entities.

The 6 public disciplines do not include religion, leaving theism and other spiritualisms electable, private pursuits. In other words, under the U.S. Preamble, neither England’s partnership with the church nor France’s secularism is proposed nor is the founders’ vision of happiness---beyond mutual, comprehensive safety and security---proposed. Liberty, the goal held in common by those three revolutions can be in conflict with responsible human independence and can be bloody license as remarkably in the French Revolution. The individual citizen may develop integrity whether he or she embrace religious hopes and comforts or not.

My belief is in the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, and I do not want anyone to consider my faith. Let each person choose motivation and inspiration on their own. Yet I encourage all fellow citizens to develop civic integrity, an achievable human character. An achievable better future can begin with acceptance and practice of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition, especially under the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth.

Some consequences of acceptance of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition




                I have yet to encounter a modern political issue that can be resolved by “the founders’” vision for us, the 12th generation of We the People of the United States. Can readers imagine imposing our vision of the future on living citizens 12 generations from now? However, living citizens can connect for mutual, comprehensive safety and security.

The 55-delegate convention of 1787 worked behind closed doors to consider and avoid observable mistakes from past governances, especially in the western world. The 5-member Committee of Style,[12] during September 8-12, 1787, abstractly expressed the resulting proposition. Only 39 delegates signed the preamble to the amendable 1787 U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Preamble has never failed my internal debate for civic integrity. The U.S. Preamble states the U.S. Revolution for responsible human independence. Future amendments to the U.S. Constitution and legal code so as to conform to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition may include the following:

1.       The First Amendment’s clauses that promote religion, an institution, may be revised to encourage integrity, a human duty.

2.       Freedom of expression may be reformed to independence of responsible human expression.

3.       Freedom of the press may be reformed to responsible press independence.

4.       Article IV may be revised to “. . . no religious Test shall ever be [allowed] as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In other words, an individual’s spiritual hopes and comforts are private rather than public concerns. That is, civic citizens who are believers nevertheless retain humility towards whatever-God-is and therefore demand separation of church and state. In other words, an elected President may have a religion, but it does not apply to the duties of the office: The President serves the entity We the People of the United States according to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions.

5.       Citizens who cannot attest to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition’s influence on his or her life as he or she interprets its can neither run for office nor vote. Consequently, no government body has an oath of office that includes phrases like “so help me God” or “so help me whatever-God-is.” The candidate either intends to lawfully officiate or not and cannot consign the duties to whatever-God-is.

6.       Following U.S. Amendments VI and XIV.1, unanimous jury-verdicts are not allowable in the USA, even for capital trials. For example, lesser crimes may be decided on as 4:2 majority or 7:5 majority, life sentences on 9:3, and capital verdicts on 11:1. Thereby, organized crime has less influence on jury trials.

7.       The current generation cannot create government debt for posterity to pay.

8.       Personal opinion cannot civilly derail or overcall the-objective-truth in ignorance of the-literal-truth. For example, adults cannot legally compromise the equity and dignity of a human ovum or spermatozoon. Ova and spermatozoon cannot be marketed.

9.       The human infant cannot be denied the opportunity to develop integrity rather than nourish infidelity.

10.   The American Bar Association cannot promote English or other alien law or traditions to exclude conformity to the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

11.   By accepting the U.S. Preamble’s potential to accelerate comprehension of the-objective-truth if not the-literal-truth, the U.S. Supreme Court at last has a standard by which to guide amendment of the U.S. Constitution as human psychology advances. Furthermore, with the needed clarity of the U.S. Preamble’s legal power to end the Confederation of states, the court may recognize and respond to the entity We the People of the United States.

12.   Education Departments change their purpose to “Encouragement Departments” with early emphasis on persuading adults to accept both HIPEA and responsible human independence without losing urgency to encourage and coach children to accept being human---a member of the most powerful species for developing integrity. Inculcation of both modern identity politics and religious beliefs are ended in publically supported universities so as to promote mutual, comprehensive safety and security with personal happiness as “the common good.”

13.   Maslow’s hierarchy is re-constructed as egocentric responsibilities rather than needs.[13]

14.   Humankind considers physics, the object of all study, as the source of not only physical but also psychological reality, which can be discovered with ineluctable evidence continually improved by new instruments of perception so that the-objective-truth ultimately approaches the-literal-truth.

15.   The people’s alienation to a uniting proposition is resolved by the U.S. Preamble under the-literal-truth. Dissidents may necessarily suffer unjust written law if discovery of statutory justice would have relieved them.

These are only a few of the potential terminations of harmful traditions that have been imposed on U.S. citizens despite the U.S. Preamble’s proposition over 230 years ago.

A few comments on Loconte’s essay


Loconte reviews the tyranny to We the People of the United States when political regimes falsely labeled the U.S. Preamble “secular.” The preamble is neutral to religion. While the French Revolution tagged 1789 as “The Year of Terror,” it was no excuse for Edmund Burke to write, “. . . people are not fit for liberty, and must have a strong hand, like that of their former masters to coerce them. Men must have a certain fund of natural moderation to qualify them for freedom.” Burke had not the comprehension expressed by Rousseau: “Christianity’s spirit is so favorable to tyranny that it always profits by such a regime.”[14] Let’s assume Rousseau read Chapter XI Machiavellianism[15] as irony but Burke did not. Burke might then have written: each human may develop the independence-to pursue integrity and benefits in freedom-from tyranny. Burke erroneously commended competitive theism to the hearts and hopes of humans, who ought to trust whatever-God-is. Tocqueville’s legacy cannot impose on whatever-God-is acceptance of ritual to bargain for favorable afterdeath. Even the U.S. Preamble came too early for freedom-from the proprietary term “liberty” so as to imagine responsible human independence.

            Loconte mentioned the Constitution several times, without sharing his interpretation of the U.S. Preamble’s proposition. We the People of the United States humbly accepts whatever-God-may-be rather than arrogating “the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus,” slighting Muslim civic citizens with their God of Abraham, Ishmael, Kedar, to Adnan, to the Musta'riba, and to the Quraysh.[16] It is disingenuous to live in a nation that proposes civic integrity so that each citizen may pursue the happiness he or she perceives rather than accept impositions by other citizens, never considering its people’s proposition for civic equity under statutory justice: here, the U.S. Preamble. Just as red-light runners beg woe, fellow citizens who neglect the U.S. Preamble’s proposition may suffer justice.



                Loconte does not consider that the U.S. Civil War was constructed on Christianity. He seems weakly remorseful for slavery and typically fails to understand Abraham Lincoln's lament that both sides pray to [whatever-God-is].[17] The Declaration of Secession concludes with the claim that the north is influenced by an erroneous religious opinion.[18] Bleeding Kansas, 1854 was by slavery promoters who were white against white abolitionists.[19] R. E. Lee's December 1856 letter to his wife referred to abolition as an evil pursuit.[20] These facts ought not be ignored.



                I encourage readers to consider Loconte’s arguments against my view of the U.S. Preamble’s untapped civic, civil, and legal powers. The U.S. Preamble is the undeveloped American political revolution.

Conclusion


                We reviewed each: the English Revolution as a point in the development of England’s partnership with its Church, the French Revolution toward secularism, colonial America’s war for independence from England, and America’s internal proposition. Scholars and political regimes suppress this American dream: private and public discipline so as to secure the benefits of responsible human independence to living citizens.

The reader is invited to ask, “Who neglects the U.S. Preamble’s proposition?” The list begins with people who may observe human development since June 21, 1788 and do not act. On that date 9 of 13 eastern-seaboard former British colonies established the USA as global nation. Today, the USA has fifty states still bound to many colonial-English traditions. Many citizens are voluntarily enslaved to identity politics. The U.S. Revolution for public discipline in order to secure responsible human independence to living citizens lies fallow. Our generation has the opportunity to establish a culture that encourages individual happiness with civic integrity. Let’s act now to establish and practice the U.S. Preamble’s proposition.

Copyright©2020 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included. Updated on 2/10/20 to include the comments on the Civil War and on 2/11/20 for physics and Maslow’s heirarchy.


[1] Joseph Loconte, “Two Revolutions for Freedom,” National Affairs, Number 42, Winter 2020, Page 146.
[11] Online at https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/us. I chose this reference because it erroneously implies that the framers agreed to it during six weeks. In reality, the draft preamble did not contain a people’s proposition, and the Committee of Style (5 delegates) wrote it beginning on September 8, 1787. Only 39 of 55 delegates signed it on September 17, 1787.
[12] Online at https://www.nps.gov/inde/learn/historyculture/the-committee-of-style-and-arrangement.htm.
[17] Online at https://www.nps.gov/linc/learn/historyculture/lincoln-second-inaugural.htm.
[18] Online at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp.
[19] Online at https://www.britannica.com/event/Bleeding-Kansas-United-States-history.
[20] Online at https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Letter_from_Robert_E_Lee_to_Mary_Randolph_Custis_Lee_December_27_1856.

Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

I want your opinion and intend to respond.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)