Thank you, Peter! Yes.. all men and women have their “clay feet”.. St Paul, and even your namesake, St Peter .. as he denied Jesus 3 times in sequence before the cock crowed and there was a time that Jesus also reprimanded him with these strong words: “get thee behind me, Satan” (when Peter was trying to convince Jesus to avoid passing through the painful trial and death that awaited him).
Your article’s focus is both timely and timeless.
The lasting and uplifting ideas expressed so beautifully in the Declaration of Independence are worthy of repeated review and acknowledgment, as are its elemental truths; so we should revisit the Declaration often to source its truths and energy.
That way, we are inspired with renewed awareness and emotionally charged appreciation of the value of the tenets of liberty and equality embodied in this wonderful document - and later, after much deliberation (see “liberation” in that word?), rendered in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Let us then pause to reflect and absorb the power of these words and hopefully they shall help us to act boldly in alignment with their intrinsic grace and meaning.
Maybe they can assist us as a polarized nation in finding common ground with others we may disagree with.
Beautiful, inspiring, and eloquent essay, Peter. Thank you!
Now I’d like to say a few words in defense of Thomas Jefferson, as he’s been getting a bum rap lately. Historians have written that Jefferson denounced slavery on multiple occasions, calling it “an abomination”. They have also recorded that Jefferson never bought or sold a single slave. What actually happened was Jefferson and his wife each inherited slaves, making them the largest slave owners in their county. They wanted to set the slaves free, but couldn’t afford it.
In the gentleman’s code of the day, you couldn’t just set a slave free. If you did, it was like placing a 100-dollar bill on the sidewalk - of course someone would pick it up, right? Just setting a slave free meant that someone else would grab him, sell him to a slave trader, or keep him for yourself, because a slave was valuable. Most likely, a freed slave would end up in worst circumstance than he had under his more benevolent owner. So, a gentleman was supposed to give a slave the means by which he could keep his freedom: teach him to read and write, teach him a marketable skill (such as tannery or blacksmithing), and set him up in a little business with the necessary tools. This cost money! Jefferson, devoted to creating a new kind of country, was not paying sufficient attention to his plantation, and was losing huge amounts of money. By the time the War for Independence was over, Jefferson was essentially bankrupt. Thus, he could not safely and in good conscience give the freedom to individuals who he felt were his responsibility to feed. Historians (before Wokism) agree that if only Jefferson had had the means to set his slaves free, he would have done so, and with great personal happiness.
Thank you, Founding Fathers. Every Fourth of July I am filled with deep appreciation and gratitude for all of your vision and sacrifice!
The passage about the consent of the governed is an important text as well.
I believe it is a greatly misunderstood one.
The argument is made that this sentence means the role of government is to secure rights. I disagree. Rather, in order to preserve our liberties governments are instituted which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In other words, it is not that government itself preserves our liberty--which common sense alone is needed to assure us this government cannot do--but rather the subordination of the government to the consent of the governed.
Government is coercion. Government is power. Government is never anything but.
As such, government is always antithetical to personal freedom and liberty. The more government we have, the less freedom. The founding fathers knew this quite well.
Government is but a necessary evil, and is generally more evil than necessary.
Government of today is not the government that was intended. You may say the consent of the governed is our vote but these days with all the money floating around I disagree.
It's comes to Senators not held responsible in their states but by popular vote and if the States want they have to follow the Fed rule.
The consent of the governed is the consent of the governed. It is neither more nor less.
Is the vote a reliable measure of the consent of the governed? You are far from alone in arguing that it is not, and the electoral abused we have seen just in 2020 and 2024 make that argument impossible to dismiss.
If government has become overly hostile and toxic to our liberty, we have both the right and the duty to change government.
This is the signature importance of premising government on the consent of the governed: it establishes that WE are the ultimate guarantor of our liberty. WE are the remedy for tyrannical and usurpatious government. WE are the ones who are called to act when the evil that is government at last becomes insufferable.
Have we reached that point where action is mandatory? If we are not already there we are perilously close and getting closer.
Ideally, we pass an amendment repealing the 17th amendment.
Failing that, the cartridge box beckons.
I would prefer we defend our freedoms with the ballot box and the jury box. However, the cartridge box, the third of Frederick Douglass' three boxes, always remains as the last resort.
Thank you, Peter! Yes.. all men and women have their “clay feet”.. St Paul, and even your namesake, St Peter .. as he denied Jesus 3 times in sequence before the cock crowed and there was a time that Jesus also reprimanded him with these strong words: “get thee behind me, Satan” (when Peter was trying to convince Jesus to avoid passing through the painful trial and death that awaited him).
Your article’s focus is both timely and timeless.
The lasting and uplifting ideas expressed so beautifully in the Declaration of Independence are worthy of repeated review and acknowledgment, as are its elemental truths; so we should revisit the Declaration often to source its truths and energy.
That way, we are inspired with renewed awareness and emotionally charged appreciation of the value of the tenets of liberty and equality embodied in this wonderful document - and later, after much deliberation (see “liberation” in that word?), rendered in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Let us then pause to reflect and absorb the power of these words and hopefully they shall help us to act boldly in alignment with their intrinsic grace and meaning.
Maybe they can assist us as a polarized nation in finding common ground with others we may disagree with.
God Bless America!
Beautiful, inspiring, and eloquent essay, Peter. Thank you!
Now I’d like to say a few words in defense of Thomas Jefferson, as he’s been getting a bum rap lately. Historians have written that Jefferson denounced slavery on multiple occasions, calling it “an abomination”. They have also recorded that Jefferson never bought or sold a single slave. What actually happened was Jefferson and his wife each inherited slaves, making them the largest slave owners in their county. They wanted to set the slaves free, but couldn’t afford it.
In the gentleman’s code of the day, you couldn’t just set a slave free. If you did, it was like placing a 100-dollar bill on the sidewalk - of course someone would pick it up, right? Just setting a slave free meant that someone else would grab him, sell him to a slave trader, or keep him for yourself, because a slave was valuable. Most likely, a freed slave would end up in worst circumstance than he had under his more benevolent owner. So, a gentleman was supposed to give a slave the means by which he could keep his freedom: teach him to read and write, teach him a marketable skill (such as tannery or blacksmithing), and set him up in a little business with the necessary tools. This cost money! Jefferson, devoted to creating a new kind of country, was not paying sufficient attention to his plantation, and was losing huge amounts of money. By the time the War for Independence was over, Jefferson was essentially bankrupt. Thus, he could not safely and in good conscience give the freedom to individuals who he felt were his responsibility to feed. Historians (before Wokism) agree that if only Jefferson had had the means to set his slaves free, he would have done so, and with great personal happiness.
Thank you, Founding Fathers. Every Fourth of July I am filled with deep appreciation and gratitude for all of your vision and sacrifice!
We must remember .. because everyone forgets this part limiting government! ONLY to SECURE rights.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "
The passage about the consent of the governed is an important text as well.
I believe it is a greatly misunderstood one.
The argument is made that this sentence means the role of government is to secure rights. I disagree. Rather, in order to preserve our liberties governments are instituted which derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In other words, it is not that government itself preserves our liberty--which common sense alone is needed to assure us this government cannot do--but rather the subordination of the government to the consent of the governed.
Government is coercion. Government is power. Government is never anything but.
As such, government is always antithetical to personal freedom and liberty. The more government we have, the less freedom. The founding fathers knew this quite well.
Government is but a necessary evil, and is generally more evil than necessary.
Yes exactly. Subordinated to us, and not a select popular few.
Government of today is not the government that was intended. You may say the consent of the governed is our vote but these days with all the money floating around I disagree.
It's comes to Senators not held responsible in their states but by popular vote and if the States want they have to follow the Fed rule.
I don't think that was the intention.
The consent of the governed is the consent of the governed. It is neither more nor less.
Is the vote a reliable measure of the consent of the governed? You are far from alone in arguing that it is not, and the electoral abused we have seen just in 2020 and 2024 make that argument impossible to dismiss.
If government has become overly hostile and toxic to our liberty, we have both the right and the duty to change government.
This is the signature importance of premising government on the consent of the governed: it establishes that WE are the ultimate guarantor of our liberty. WE are the remedy for tyrannical and usurpatious government. WE are the ones who are called to act when the evil that is government at last becomes insufferable.
Have we reached that point where action is mandatory? If we are not already there we are perilously close and getting closer.
So how do you presume to CLAW back the 17th Amendment?
Ideally, we pass an amendment repealing the 17th amendment.
Failing that, the cartridge box beckons.
I would prefer we defend our freedoms with the ballot box and the jury box. However, the cartridge box, the third of Frederick Douglass' three boxes, always remains as the last resort.
I would bet you can't even get ONE person to put pen to paper (hand to keyboard) to even draft such a thing. It would strip a lot of power.