History

In 1813, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it’s ascendancy.

Where do we start with this one? Let’s start with the end where Jefferson makes the statement that ‘artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government.’

In order to understand where Jefferson is taking us, we have to take a second to understand how he defines the idea of ‘artificial aristocracy.’ Simply put, he said it is founded on ‘wealth and birth.’ The idea that they are ‘entitled’ to a place in government because of their money, or even the idea that it’s their birth-rite (Because that’s a thing in America?).

Now, let’s go back to it being a bad ingredient for those in government.

Take a look at politics today. For a moment, let’s put aside history and look just at today. We’ve morphed into this idea that only those who are wealthy are fit for political office. We’ve morphed into this idea that because someone else in the family, or even a spouse, was in office, that somehow sets into motion that they are next in line. That this is their time.

Truth be told, it isn’t! That’s just not how this idea was supposed to work.

This brings us to Jefferson’s idea that ‘natural aristocracy’ is ‘the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.’

Uninfluenced by their own lusts for power, they rely on their ‘talents and virtue.’ Something of a lost art in today’s society.

Let us focus on the promotion of a ‘natural aristocracy’ rather than give way to a polluted ‘artificial aristocracy.’

“Today, we celebrate our Independence day.”

It’s one day a year that we line our streets with American flags, fill the air with the smell of fireworks, and talk it up about how awesome it is to celebrate the 4th of July.

*tires screeching to a stop

“What did you just say?”

“I said, ‘the 4th of July.'”

*slap

“What the heck was that for?”

“You said you were going to ‘celebrate the 4th of July’, that’s what!”

Alright, enough of the back and forth. I think you get the hint. And, I want to take just a second to rant about this for just a second. Sure, it technically is the 4th of July. But we don’t celebrate the 4th of July. We celebrate our INDEPENDENCE on the 4th of July.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves. It really does get to me. Why? Well, for one, it just doesn’t make sense. Why would we celebrate the date? Shouldn’t we celebrate what happened… on that date? YES! That makes sense.

I sincerely hope we haven’t forgotten just what we’re to celebrate either. So many people think it’s just another day to get off from work. Or go to the lake. Or… whatever, you get my point. It’s about celebrating the declaration of our independence.

In a letter to his wife, Abigail, dated July 3, 1776, John Adams said:

“Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphletts, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in Town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. — This will cement the Union, and avoid those Heats and perhaps Convulsions which might have been occasioned, by such a Declaration Six Months ago.

“But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

“You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.”

Are we doing this all wrong? Not entirely. They understood what was done. Even they celebrated. But they didn’t celebrate the day, they celebrated the completion of the act. For Adams, that day should have fallen on the 2nd of July. And, if we did our homework, we would know the course of events and why.

So, what are we celebrating? A day… or the declaring of our Independence?

I challenge you to take time out of the day to read the Declaration of Independence. Ponder on what it really says. Take a second think about what they really did.

On this, the fourth day of July, I wish to you a Blessed and Happy INDEPENDENCE Day.

In order to know where one is headed, it is equally important to know where one has been. History. It does not change. There are some groups out there that do their best to rewrite it. However, as hard as they are working to subvert the minds of tomorrow, there are a silent few who continue to keep history alive.

Also, what it is to be conservative continues to be under attack. And, it may just be because they don’t know and understand. Again, it is funny how many things point us back to history. Time has a way of bringing things full circle.

This election cycle has certainly opened the eyes of many. And, they search for an understanding of things. So, with this commentary series, we’ll be taking a look back in order to look forward.

First up in the series we will take a look at Edmund Burke’s public Letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol, in which he highlights the character of civil freedom.

“[The] way still before you is intricate, dark, and full of perplexed and treacherous mazes. Those who think they have the clue may lead us out of this labyrinth. We may trust them as amply as we think proper; but as they have most certainly a call for all the reason which their stock can furnish, why should we think it proper to disturb its operation by inflaming their passions?”

Burke’s idea here, as he reflected on the direction of America, says plain and simple that things just aren’t that easy. And, it wasn’t. As it is today, things are extremely complex. Yet, at the same time, simple. We have been cautioned at every turn to question those seeking power and dominion over us. He certainly points to this saying to “trust them as amply as we think proper.” We should never put our entire trust in one person. We should only give enough trust as we see proper given the circumstances.

“The poorest being that crawls on earth, contending to save itself from injustice and oppression, is an object respectable in the eyes of God and Man. But I cannot conceive any existence under Heaven, (which, in the depths of its wisdom, tolerates all sorts of things) that is more truly odious and disgusting, than an impotent helpless creature, without civil wisdom or military skill, without a consciousness of any other qualification for power but his servility to it, bloated with pride and arrogance, calling for battles which he is not to fight, contending for a violent dominion which he can never exercise, and satisfied to be himself mean and miserable, in order to render others contemptible and wretched.”

This is a call from Burke to put serious thought into the people we promote to higher office. He cautions us to not blindly trust someone who doesn’t have the experience and ‘civil wisdom or military skill.’ He warns that being ‘bloated with pride and arrogance’ are not a qualification for power. That, when all of these things are combined, it leads to a ‘mean and miserable’ person set solely on ‘[rendering] others contemptible and wretched.’

Burke understood that we exist under the dominion of Heaven, that we are lead by a moral and just God. This understanding is what some claim his entire argument to circle around, and that is, God has granted us certain freedoms of which give us the ability to self-govern. That is the entire argument for America.

“If there be one fact in the world perfectly clear, it is this: “That the disposition of the people of America is wholly averse to any other than a free government”; and this is indication enough to any honest statesman, how he ought to adapt whatever power he finds in his hands to their case. If any ask me what a free government is, I answer that, for any practical purpose, it is what the people think so; and that they, and not I, are the natural, lawful, and competent judges of this matter.”

Again, understanding that we are entrusted with the ability to self-govern, we are entrusted with the opportunity to choose who we want to be our representatives. And, those selected as our representatives, are a direct definition of what we collectively determine our ‘free government’ to be.

Now, before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s revisit what Burke touched on earlier. The complexity of this entire process, and the reward, which we are entrusted to maintain, freedom.

What we determine to be a ‘free government’ rests upon the shoulders of those we select to represent us. So, if we are choosing to elect someone ill-equipped and ‘bloated with pride and arrogance,’ then we must face the consequence of those choices, and the freedoms which they oppose. One of nature’s laws says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, what you seek to gain in the now you must give up something to gain it. We must always remember how precious it is to operate under a free government.

“There are people, who have split and anatomise the doctrine of free government, as if it were an abstract question concerning metaphysical liberty and necessity; and not a matter of moral prudence and natural feeling. They have disputed, whether liberty be a positive or a negative idea; whether it does not consist in being governed by laws; without considering what are the laws, or who are the makers; whether man has any rights by nature; and whether all the property he enjoys be not the alms of his government, and his life itself their favour and indulgence. Others corrupting religion, as these have perverted philosophy, contend, that Christians are redeemed into captivity; and the blood of the Saviour of mankind has been shed to make them the slaves of a few proud and insolent sinners. These shocking extremes provoking to extremes of another kind, speculations are let loose as destructive to all authority, as the former are to all freedom; and every government is called tyranny and usurpation which is not formed on their fancies. In this manner the stirrers-up of this contention, not satisfied with distracting our dependencies and filling them with blood and slaughter, are corrupting our understanding: they are endeavouring to tear up, along with practical liberty, all the foundations of human society, all equity and justice, religion and order.”

This is one of the strongest arguments Burke presents in this writing. And that is, we should not hide up our civil freedom. Rather, we should do everything we can to promote it. It is a blessing beyond what many of us can measure.

Again, allow for one second, to revisit what was presented earlier. The maze of complexity. As we are to measure those who seek power and office, we are to measure the consequences that will result from those same individuals. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who seek total control, while those opposite of them, are willing to risk too much liberty. Either of which should be restrained. Which, brings us to the final point of Burke, limited liberty.

“The extreme of liberty (which is its abstract perfection, but its real fault) obtains nowhere, nor ought to obtain anywhere. Because extremes, as we all know, in every point which relates either to our duties or satisfactions in life, are destructive both to virtue and enjoyment. Liberty too must be limited in order to be possessed. The degree of restraint it is impossible in any case to settle precisely. But it ought to be the constant aim of every wise, publick council, to find out by cautious experiments, and rational, cool endeavours, with how little, not how much of this restraint, the community can subsist, For liberty is a good to be improved, and not an evil to be lessened.”

Liberty and civil freedom should be the promotion of every free government. Yet the beauty of the complexity can be found in its simplicity.

Did someone rewrite and enhance signatures on the hallowed parchment?

And is that — and the grimy handprint on the document — the result of 20th-century bungling?

Two retired experts with the National Archives who have carefully scrutinized the Declaration think the answers all are yes.

Sometime between 1903 and 1940, officials with access to the Declaration of Independence marred the treasured document, rewriting or overwriting famous signatures and leaving behind a print of a left hand, the experts think.

The two scholars contend that it was also during this period that the handwriting on the Declaration was mysteriously diminished, costing it more of its already dwindling original ink. Now, little of that ink survives.

“Between 1903 … and 1940 someone … took drastic steps that altered the document significantly … [in] what can only be described as the defacement — even if unintentional — of the Declaration,” the authors wrote in the fall issue of the National Archives quarterly magazine, Prologue.

“The defining damage that made the Declaration what it is today was not the result of 19th-century copying or excessive exhibition, but occurred in the 20th century,” wrote Mary Lynn Ritzenthaler, the Archives’ retired chief of conservation, and Catherine Nicholson, the retired deputy chief.

“Something happened after 1903 that caused that damage, and made people … enhance the signatures,” Ritzenthaler said in an interview Friday.

Read more: Washington-Enterprise