Notes: Reflection and Choice vs. Accident and Force: The Making of the Constitution Webinar

Reflection and Choice versus Accident and Force: The Making of the Constitution

Ashbrook Center at Ashland University
TeachingAmericanHistory.org / Saturday Webinar
(50 Core Documents Series)

Informational Perma Link

Required Readings

• James Madison’s Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (excerpts) (May 31 and June 6, 1787)
• Constitution of the United States (September 17, 1787)
• Brutus I (October 18, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 1 (October 27, 1787)
• Brutus II (November 1, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 51 (February 6, 1788)

Presenters

• Christopher Burkett, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University
• Peter Schramm, Senior Fellow and Ashbrook Scholar Program Director at Ashland University
• Gordon Lloyd, Honored Visiting Graduate Faculty at Ashland University

Discussion Notes

100 Years ago Charles Beard published his Economic Interpretation of the US, arguing a new take on the American Founding, that it was done for selfish economic class reasons. Represents a fairly significant change in the study of the founding, numerous new alternative views developing. So how can we take the founding seriously? Beard’s approach is interesting, because his view must underlie every word and document from the Constitution and the founding. Flip it and give a constitutional interpretation of the economic theory! (Gordon Lloyd). Forrest McDonald et. al. challenging this underlying progressive assumption that ideas don’t matter, only circumstances matter and the ideas follow.

In fairness, similar conflicts existed at the founding. Dispute between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist was about the greatest challenge to liberty—both sides agreed that elections were not enough to prevent tyranny, but far deeper details.

Why are the progressives so vital even today? Because we haven’t completely solved the problems of inequality and democracy…and they are very concerned with that challenge. Close connection to how you view private property—is it an absolute and therefore okay to limit to the few, or alright to claim in the name of the many.

Ironic that Progressives really brought back the reading of the Federalist Papers, Beard reviving No. 10 esp. as a document protecting private property (ergo class interest). Madison understood in his context that property and liberty were the same thing (with the whole problem of chattel slavery). But even until the 70s documents weren’t really read by your typical students…viewed through Beard and a few others. Ultimately the reason a place like Ashbrook reads documents straight—without the interpretation of Beard et. al.—is an opening assumption that the human mind is free and able to rationally consider and think for itself; ergo Beard et. al. don’t provide any mystical understanding and frequently cloud the waters. Not that they are irrelevant, but not the source. Ad fontes. And in this case that means reading Wilson instead of Beard.

What we see is that there is a compelling logic and reason behind the constitution, not just an accidental structure that emerges. Again, an appreciation for the ability of the human mind to reflect and choose, not simply a ‘belief’ in humans ‘rights’ (i.e. freedom, but corrupted by the French). America perhaps the only country in the world that was “born talking” (Peter Schramm)—that is we came into being as a country with a deliberate, considered, thoughtful debate about who we should be and what our core beliefs would be. Current challenge and debate is what sort of freedom do we desire? Thinking today says “if one fat kid is left behind” we are doing it wrong; but that becomes dangerous to freedom. So what do we want government to do? Can have a freedom that is dangerous to government; and a government that is dangerous to freedom.

Consider: life is so complicated today, we needs lots of experts and systems to make life work. Is good government then administrative government? Need good scientists and bureaucrats etc. Very different question! Though not the first time it has happened…the ratification was the first major dispute or four or five, which are always revisiting the old ones:

1. Ratification
2. Lincoln and the Civil War dispute over Freedom
3. Wilson’s Progressive Vision
4. FDR? (con’t of above)
5. Technology and Terror

Opposite of slavery is not, for instance, equality, it is liberty. Opposite of tyranny is consent of the governed. It is fascinating how the early progressive vision was passed through the constitutional mechanism of amendments: the 15-18th were radical amendments, yet passed through 2/3 of the Congress & 3/4 of the states. Later progressive vision is through courts and gov’t—bureaucratic administrative expertise state. The next amendment? The Twentieth Amendment, which limits the powers of the president, and then the 22nd Amendment which attempts to limit the executive any further. Both a bit of an anti-federalist return.

Long diversion on the Tea Party as restoration of the anti-federalists…not really. Action ≠ thoughtful deliberation or engagement; fascinating that conservatives have adopted the more progressive idea of action and movements in place of reasonable debate. Entirely different perceptions of government…Coolidge said there wasn’t much to do as president, since then everyone has seen it as a call to action, problem solving! Politics as War…Roosevelt’s War Power kicking the can down the road rather than solving problems; gov’t isn’t really designed to solve problems, it is designed for liberty under the same roof. All about compromise and long-term perspectives; in our modern perspective politics is a declaration of war!

Constitution to (a) restrain gov’t powers or (b) solve problems. Radically different imaginations of what government should do and will do; hence the different views of courts, etc. Conversation between Madison and Sherman on June 6th, who slowly come to an understanding. Reflection a necessary element of deliberation.

Practically speaking, kids don’t understand this perspective on gov’t at all. Best solution is always to go back to the beginning. Remember that historically rule was determined by whoever had the biggest guns! Aristotle traces things back to our passions—hunger and sex! Put that into view and you can work your way forward to a very different view of government not as provider but protector. As Hamilton points out in Federalist 9, all governments, republics to tyrannies, fail in this regard, and all the quicker when they attempt to do anything more than protect the people. Different definitions of “security;” ability to enjoy liberty v. “job security.”

Back to the idea of deliberation…notice how when we think of government and laws we think first of the president and the courts, not the Congress! Fascinating mixup, Congress is suppose to be our thoughtful element and the progressive vision completely ignores that; far more than the anti-Federalists would have ever dreamed possible (substituting a different sort of tyranny instead). The number of people Congress is suppose to represent is a huge part of this problem; 1:600,000 ratio isn’t really representative or thoughtful at all. And really no good way to fix that in a republic of our size. Voter turnout and voter literacy about who their representative is v. who the president is also quite telling here. Probably the best way is a return of many of the functions of government back to the state and local government…and local institutions! Private schools, local aid societies; civic education, etc.

Another reminder that freedom is not lack of restraint. Reiteration of earlier points. FDR’s strange half-breed understanding. Why are young people better understand gov’ts role in freedom of speech than other protection of liberties instead of something like education or welfare? Natural sense that speech is a very fundamental part of their existence and liberty. Necessary to connect to broader world and role of government. Their idea is that gov’t is to make us free not only from our fears, but also our problems in the democratic world. Difference in who applies the restraint—for the modern democratic man, it is society; for the founders, it is ourselves. Means a vastly different role for government.

So ask your students: what areas of life are they capable of governing themselves? What food you eat? Who you should date? Which pills you can take? Riding your bike? Where do you draw the line about what we can do or not do?

Democratic consensus is majority rule; Rousseau’s vision says everyone agrees before something can be done. Absolutely absurd; Locke would never buy it. Rousseau’s line that people “must be forced to be free.” Slightly problematic? Perhaps the most we can do is nudge them.

(Talking about the counties in Northern Colorado that are attempting to secede? Is secession a valid attempt from the founding perspective? Seems more like a realization of the limits of the conversation and the whole inability to compromise. Obviously one hopes it isn’t necessary…but the CSA was definitely a case where the conversation had no future. Fascinating side into Rousseau/Hobbes idea that there is no ‘exit’ right from government; Locke gives you a small exit right but under strict conditions. Whereas today we have no-fault divorce in almost all the states, no real reason required or even therapy (appeal to the experts). No-fault divorce and secession both seen to abandon the idea of deliberation and working to overcome differences. Revolution as the traditional exit right; states aren’t sacred and don’t have inherit rights.)

Still trapped in the notion that action is simply the implementation of previously agreed upon policy. Not really. An election is not a “mandate” because the people do not speak with one unified voice. Elections are just one small part of the overall discussion…instead we seem to view them as imperative voices-of-god that mysteriously seem to to run into thousands of problems when attempted to implement. Haste to execute before deliberation, “we won’t know what’s in the bill till we put it into action” (Nancy Pelosi). And when it doesn’t work we say “we didn’t sell it properly!” Politics has simply become policy salesmanship…not thinking or compromise. One of the great reasons we need to reclaim federalism…yes, Jim Crowe happened. But the policy overall can be quite healthy (pot excluded, perhaps). A valve and view worth reclaiming.

Three Root Questions We Must Always Ask:

1. What should gov’t do? At elections, at votes, at every possible opportunity.
2. Which level of gov’t should do this?
3. And which branch of gov’t should do this? Constitutional prudence dictates it…as power always tends towards terrible centralization.

Q: President seems like the papacy…somehow representing everyone. A: Liberty and infallibility never go together.

Very sidelining discussion about diversity and discrimination related to the idea of federalism; challenge of the idea of absolute equality in all things across all states at all times…big difference between owning another human v. manufacturing intoxicating liquor. There is a line in somewhere that we seem ignorant of. Same dilemma with just war v. unjust war. We desperately want a one-size fits all; perhaps a result of the very ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence of universal claims! Distinction between universalizing core values and universalizing particular values…Jefferson was not a Kantian; one size does not fit all in all regards and Jefferson understood that (contra John Rawls). A denial of prudence.

2013-11-02

Pedophilia and Marriage

In Civics we have been discussing some of the influences on the formation of the American Constitution, including classical republicanism (thanks, Dr. Rahe) and the standard Enlightenment thinkers. But in addition to these worthy matters current events also come up, by design as I require a weekly reading response to a recent op-ed in one of the major papers. Though some students dislike the task of browsing the weekend op-ed pages on the weekend and having to find something they are vaguely enough aware of to respond to, several find it an interesting exercise in engagement with current events and good conversation fodder. Our class, which is 4th period immediately before lunch, is always attracted to a good secondary conversation (This is the same class where J. raised his hand in 10th grade during a discussion of slavery and deliberately asked with a his lethal-smirking face "Mr. Fuller, what do you think about the N-word?"). Today the fodder was provided by H., who offered a great deal of concern and outrage at an op-ed noting how pedophilia is now being justified in some states with arguments similar to those used by the gay rights (and several other) movements.

Richard Dawkins recently made headlines asserting that "mild pedophila" is generally harmless, something quite verboten in our Puritanical culture of Miley Cyrus stripper poles and incessant flesh-filled advertisements, movies, books, and magazines. Given his understanding of the world, it is hard to disagree. Anthony Esolen recently noted that America's objection to pedophila "rests on sentiments and not on moral reasoning." We are proper to find it revolting; we are hypocrites to then consume and celebrate both high and pop cultures of sexual liberation and empty sexuality and then find ourselves shocked by the results. Esolen's essay is quite damning.

The moral structure of pedophilia is simply this: the welfare of children is subordinate to the sexual gratification of adults.

Inflamed by the warrior-poet Esolen I took passionate hold of the topic, and proceeded to launch a classic diatribe, (available against almost anything, it seems) that awkwardly ended when I called arguments over the age of consent "pious self-congratulating bulls---" before realizing exactly what I was saying to a classroom full of my students. A slightly stunned and highly amused laugh immediately filled the room, drowning out my quiet apology.

At least that was with the seniors, who tend to view me (for good or ill) as a close ally in the fight towards adulthood than a faculty member to be feared (except my history exam short IDs. Everyone still fears those).

Not one period later, I found myself discussing marriage and the much-disclaimed verse from Ephesians 5:22 "wives, submit to your husbands as to the LORD." I think the path there was the Hebrew's conception of man as in the image of God per Genesis, to woman being made from the Rib of Adam so which image was she, and then why did God make the Woman from out of the Man and how does that in itself justify the ideas that Dad's are suppose to be in charge?! Because if you look at it Mom's run things. I refrain from comment and proceed to construct a short theology of marriage, recalling the next verse as "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church." Ah, here is a pattern they can begin to recognize, a cosmic order of creation. Christ as the Head of the Church who gave Himself for her; Man as the Head of the Woman, suffering as responsible for her deception due to his place as her head;* and as the head of their family loving her as a foreshadowing of Christ's love for the church. We are now speaking the language of covenant, and the more catechized heads begin to nod. Further explanation; empathetic comment that it strikes me as a pretty terrifying calling from the man's perspective; discussion of the Assyrian Empire waylaid til tomorrow. Class over.

Fifteen minutes later I climb the stairs to sixth grade, plotting how to best teach a new motion for our history memory song.

* Another question raised: would we all be held guilty for Eve's sin if Adam didn't eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but just Eve did? Would the curse still be valid through the mother, or would Adam's (hopeful) righteousness have prevented Adam's fall, in which we all fall? I haven't the faintest clue, my dears, but you have three other teachers with M.Divs so go ask them. Seriously, this is #abovemypaygrade.

Counting Class Periods Like Telegraph Poles from the Central Pacific

Three days of classes left, two weeks til graduation (which is the significant end point, though two days of staff meetings still have to be endured after that). The fourth quarter is always the fastest. That's a blessing in some ways--issues and problems and boring material just get run over and lost in the hubbub of field days and trips and activities. Even more that you would like to pause and savor flies by as you grasp at the last class days.

The last PT conferences of the year completed. I find it odd that we have them with only a month left—very little can be done at that point, beyond perhaps reassuring the few parents who are wavering about whether their kids should stay or go. Those who already decided to go are a lost cause, don't burn the bridge behind you (annnnd too late). The parents of the kids who do well don't really need to hear anything; so you struggle to come up with some sort comment or critique to save that is both helpful and constructive and not the same "he's doing great" comment you wanted to give last PT conference. Hard not to like the kids who leave you grasping at straws for conference material. "So, summer plans?"

Monday morning I judged six of the junior-senior theses. They were alright, two weren't very well thought out but did a nice job expanding common school themes (Christianity has been ruined by x). One of my favorite students from last year used David Bentley Hart to pin a lot of blame for secularization of the church on the Peace of Westphalia, which Mr. B and I both had a few issues with. But overall there weren't many issues or real questions, which I think is what bothered me about the entire project. There were some excellent students, but they all presented fairly common topics drawn from the upper school classes. Outside the school they might be very controversial, but inside it was nearly an echo chamber. Mr. B and I both had the most questions, but in some cases there just wasn't much to ask. Yes, welfare has made the church lazy in its responsibilities, yes, mega-churches seem bad for Korea. Now go outside these walls, say it, and see how people respond.

Later one of the board members said he was glad I wasn't questioning him, and I just laughed. Considering I never had to present or defend my own undergraduate thesis thanks to the program changes of Dr. Sundahl (nor would I want to given its content, I'm embarrassed to say), I found it all slightly amusing to be on the other side of the table.

Wednesday through Friday I ran double-periods of ninth and tenth history to keep them busy while another faculty was out of town defending his own Ph.D. dissertation. Due to some miscalculations I needed the time, so it worked out. But prepping two extra lessons a night (some of which I'd never taught before) was a bit stressful. It was nice having the second period though, knowing that I could take the English Civil War a bit slower and come back to something that didn't quite click (a lot with the various factions in the English Civil War, I'm afraid. But Hobbes was worse).

Normally tenth grade has my class 4th period, right before lunch. This means you usually hear something like "I'M SO HUNGRY" as class is starting. During the extra periods they were in my room 2nd period and 4th period, messing up their biological meal clock. "LUNCH....aww, it's just second period." "I know," the teacher replies, pouring his third cup of coffee.

PANIC IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL: "You are giving us a college-level final! Our school classes aren't cumulative, aren't they?!" -- panicking eighth grade female (the best!*) who didn't quite grasp the meaning of the study guide and choose to have a panic attack instead. Sure, it's a long list of terms but you've done them all before and did just fine. Thankfully her classmates understood this and tried to calm her down, but when that didn't work they just got annoyed and started mutterings, which leads to hurt feelings which leads to emotional emails which lead me to ignore the problem for the weekend. And then direct class to recite our Nicene Creed memory work and start a lecture on the challenges of Christianity in the Late Roman Empire, placing special emphasis on Christianity charity.

Half of  town is inaccessible right now and all of it is crawling with tourists and wandering re-enactors as we celebrate Day in Old Colonial Town. The King and Queen of Sweden were recently here to celebrate the 375th anniversary of Swedish settlement in the region, truly a historic mark, but sorta dinky compared to New York. I suppose this placed turned out better than the Swedish colonies in Central America. Still doesn't explain the Confederate Civil War tent that someone set up...

A colleague is getting married in two weeks and I have been designated an official wedding cake sampler for the last month. It's stretching my critiquing abilities to the limit—I haven't had a sample I didn't like in two weeks, and would be quite happy to have it served at my own wedding or any other time.

"Yes, this chocolate mousse is very good, the other is also very good and somewhat silkier." 

"Which do you prefer?"

"Uh, well..." *takes seconds* "that will depend on the cake texture."

"The third cake you had last week."

"the frozen chocolate or the unfrozen vanilla? Because it will have to be frozen eventually. I imagine the silkier will hold up better."

"And frosting. The butter creme frosting, or the stiffer one that J. made? Or the all-egg one? Which do you like more?"

"All of them. But channeling my whimsy I vote option 2 because I don't even know what we are talking about anymore."

 "Some help you are."

But I keep getting cake! Obviously my career as a food and wine critic is coming along well. I promise feedback on anything you send.

Three class days left and 16 history papers to grade. Hello Saturday.

* the only thing better than a dramatic eighth grade girl is a dramatic middle school mother of a middle school girl. There's gotta be something genetic about it.

There Is a Line Here Somewhere

While I appreciate the fact that students take an interest in my personal life (even if it is largely for the purposes of distracting us from class material), trying to set me up with their 20-something family friends is probably going a bit too far. On the other hand, since they've exhausted in the in-school possibilities romance possibilities for Mr. Fuller I gotta give it to them for the effort...

But really: dating suggestions and advice from 8th graders seems a bit much.

Whoops

Sometimes I'm not sure I have the emotional capacity to deal with teenage females (one could add something about all females, but we'll pass up the obvious for tonight).

As when one's (gentle but firm!) criticisms and exhortations regarding a National History Day project gone wrong mean that a student is later found crying in the bathroom...and another member of the class comes to...admonish? beseech? respectfully inform? one of this incident and expresses hopes that it will not diminish the character of the student or the classroom environment "since we still have you next year."

Lord have mercy. Where is my pipe.

Valere

Just threw out my old high school Latin notebook in the process of preparing for a move.

Not that I dislike Latin, in fact I was am rather fond of it, despite struggling with Bs and Cs through high school and college. Fail me once, shame on me. Fail twice, well maybe reconsider your life goals. Fail a third time? Learn some grammar, gosh-darn it! Someday I will go back to it. I really hope so, anyway. Poor Mrs. Harvey, and Drs. Garnjobsts, Hutchinson, and Jones. What patience saints. Salvete Latina lingua I-have-loved (amabam? See, worthless).

I still have the college notes anyway.

Looking Alive

School portraits arrived yesterday. Last year I looked...tired, and somewhat distant (my brother said stoned, which is obvious not true, because this isn't Colorado). I was surviving, but very well worn and tired—and that was only 5 weeks in!

This year I actually look alive, happy, and even vibrant (questionable word choice, I know). The students who suddenly yelled "SMILE MR. FULLER!" probably helped. Regardless I consider the picture a measure of progress. I will not be mounting it on  my living room, classroom, or bedroom wall, however. Seeing myself every morning in the mirror is enough trama for one day, and there isn't anyone who would want to have my picture anyway. Which is alright, as I cannot blame them.

This Friday is the end of the first quarter. Eighth grade is getting their first real taste of the upper school faculty, with four tests this week. I was going to make it a paper but decided the test was easier on them, not to mention easier for me to grade over the weekend. They'll have plenty of other opportunities, I'm sure. Overall they aren't as bright as last year's class, so I'm having to slow down, focus on routine and repetition, and in general treat them more like the eighth graders they are (and remember that the eighth graders I saw in May of last year had were a full year ahead of the eighth graders I started this year with. There is hope.).

A timeline is slowly going up in my room, I have been meaning to make one since my last observation but befuddled by placement and location. Three thousand years of history is a lot to spread on the walls, flowing around corners, beams, and pull-down projector screens. Hopefully it will all come together, though I will have to relocate my Medieval Maps & Art wall to make way for American History (cue the Constitution!).

In time, in time, school has such a funny sense of time--class periods come, pass, bell, laughter in the hall way, dismissal, grading, planning, cramming for exams, teaching class without a lesson plan, desperation to fit material in as more and more class days are whittled away by events and sports and Christmas concert rehearsals, school pictures...

Into the desk drawer the picture goes. Perhaps I should send it to Grandma.

Song of Roland

For the last two weeks ninth grade has been reading the Song of Roland, Dorothy Sayers translation available through Penguin. It is a marvelous "Song of Deeds," a Chanson de Geste (French is always italicized, right?) of Medieval chivalry and Christendom, a swashbuckling tale of mixed verse and metaphor, of Christian and pagan, of right and wrong, of heroism and defeat, of manliness and cowardice and treachery.

And they don't like it. Which normally I wouldn't care about, but this is my best class. And they are bored. Whuuuut? What fools these mortals be! Today, during recitations, one student recited the following:

Then Berenger drives at Estramarin,
He cleaves the shield, and the good hauberk splits,
On his stout spear the trunk of him he spits
And flings him dead ' mid thousand Sarrasins.
Of the Twelve Peers ten are already killed,
Two and no more are left of them who live;
These are Chernubles and the Count Margaris.

(Laisse 102) 

The only real emotion was a pause to snicker at "Chernubles." Which is worth snickering at, but really, nothing else going on? the GOOD HAUBERK SPLIT? He was tossed dead among THOUSAND Sarrasins? ONLY TWO ARE LEFT? We can do better. Thankfully, for their sake, we are done and will be moving on to...less exciting things, unless I start talking about battles with Muslims again (always a fun topic!). Their loss...I hope.

It is finally cold, and I experienced the same rain that delayed the Orioles-Yankees game last night. What a chill.

P.S. Opening up Blogger revealed for the first time a very faint band of lightness down the center of my monitor. Perhaps time to start a Morris Replacement Fund -- he has served me quite faithfully for 7+ years and deserves a rest. Bother.

P.S.S. That moment of relief and "what the fried Twinkie?!" when you discover a bad quiz has been marked as double-weight in the computer...thus making everyones' grade even worse than it really is. I'm not that mean—I think.