Killing Democracy

It frightens the Colonel more than just a little (and he ain't scared of much) that the future of our Republic rests today in the hands of power-seekers whose cynical use of the inherently tyrannical concepts of democracy (also known as government by mob rule) and socialism threatens the very foundations upon which the most free people in the history of mankind live and work.

Those who would aspire to leadership in the affairs of our grand Republic would do well to study the actions of a great leader 236 years ago this month.

Allow the Colonel to set the scene for you:

The main fighting force of the American rebellion against Great Britain was encamped at Newburgh, New York.  They, with more than a little help from the French Army and Navy, had shocked the world with the defeat of a British expeditionary force at Yorktown a year and half earlier.  The remainder of British forces were bottled up in New York City, and the Continental Army remained nearby at Newburgh to keep an eye on them while an American delegation negotiated a peace treaty and independence in London.

One of General George Washington's most difficult tasks as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army (the army of the American colonial rebellion against the British Crown) was keeping an army in the field.  As long as a Continental Army existed, the rebellion existed.  As long as the rebellion existed, hope of independence existed.  

The Continental Army was a whole different animal than the local and colony (state) militias.  The various militias were untrained, mostly poorly led, and only showed up to participate (usually with poor results) in battles.  After a battle (often in the midst of one) the militia melted away and returned to their homes.  Militias started the war for independence -- but it would take a continuously fielded army to win that war.        

Keeping an army in the field requires material, leadership, and, most importantly, a steady supply of manpower.  Manning an army, particularly in a relatively free society, is a tricky business.  Most nations employ some sort of conscription or draft.  Richer nations rely on a combination of a draft and volunteers (providing compensation and benefit inducements).  The richest nations often do away with a draft altogether (in times of relative peace) and rely strictly on an all-volunteer (read: "recruited") force. (In the United States most young men and women do not seriously consider military service until contacted by a recruiter and sold on the benefits of serving.)

During the American rebellion, there was no central Colonial authority to draft or recruit personnel for the Army and fledgling Navy.  The individual colonies were cajoled by the Continental Congress (and, in some cases, by direct communication from George Washington himself) to raise forces for extended service with the line of the Continental Army.  Most enlistments were for only one year and often for only 6 months.  While some soldiers committed to serving for the duration of the conflict, most of the army's manpower was in a constant state of flux.  

A large part of the reason for this constant state of flux was the fact that compensation for service was often only promissory -- individual colonies promised to compensate (in one form or another) later for service now.  The national government was really no government at all -- it had little to no power over the individual colonies who each considered themselves practically independent nations in their own right.  Any compensation and provisions provided by the Continental Congress came mostly from whatever loans the individual colonies and foreign governments (primarily France, Holland, and Spain) voluntarily provided.  

The Continental Congress, and the individual colonies, did initially rely on fiat currency (paper money not backed by precious metal or other collateral) but before long that currency was considered worthless and not acceptable for trade, and by the time of the occurrence about which this post is written (early 1783) the compensation for the officers and men of the Continental Army was seriously in arrears.

In fact, in 1782, the Continental Congress actually formally suspended all individual compensation for the Army, the intent being to settle up with the officers and men after the war was over.
    
So, with no battles to fight since the defeat of Cornwallis' force at Yorktown in 1781, the roughly 8,000 man Continental Army sat on its hands in camp -- under-equipped, under-fed, unpaid, and unhappy.

An army with time on its hands -- even a well-paid and well-fed one -- will soon turn its energies to complaint.  Place a few unprofessional officers with personal agendas in charge and those complaints will turn to conspiracy.  In camp at Newburgh, New York, the Continental Army was rife with conspiracy.

In early 1783, an anonymous letter circulated among the officers at Newburgh condemning the inaction and inattention of the Continental Congress to the plight and pay of the Continental Army, and proposing a march on the seat of that congress at Philadelphia to rectify the situation.

In the Colonel's not-so-humble and not-so-little-studied opinion, one of Washington's chief subordinates -- General Horatio Gates (a former British Army general and open rival of Washington for command of the rebellion) -- if not the actual author of the letter, was the power behind the hand behind the pen.  Washington had left Gates in charge of the force at Newburgh while he dealt with larger matters of the entire force and the Colonel believes Gates saw an opportunity (with the preponderance of the American army at his back) to stage a coup and take personal leadership of the entire rebellion (or maybe even use his control to bargain with the British for his own personal gain).

At any rate, a conspiratorial meeting of the officers was called for the 11th of March, 1783. 

It was democracy in action.

That's right, the Colonel says this mutinous conspiracy had democracy as its agent of creation and force of animation.

You see, in a democracy, one man can whip up and ride the passions of a majority to his own ends and to the end of the interests of the minority and eventually to the end of the freedoms of the whole.  The leaders of the Newburgh conspirators intended to hold a democratic vote, get majority approval for their plan, and then stage a coup that would have defeated the entire purpose of the revolution -- the establishment of a (little "r") republican form of governance for the upstart American nation.  

The founders of our great nation DID NOT intend to found it as a democracy.  They were (for the most part) well-read and educated men whose study of historical examples of government forms informed them that a democracy was the least stable and ultimately most self-destructive form of government known to man.  The written arguments (the Federalist Papers, and other public and private letters) for establishment of our current Constitutional Republic -- are replete with dismal of democracy, decrying that form of government as dangerous and wholly unsuited for the purpose of the grand republic (with minority State and individual rights protections) envisioned.  Democracy leads to coups -- coups lead to tyranny.

Need further proof of the Colonel's assertion?  Go read both the  Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and report back to the Colonel the number of times you find the actual word "democracy" or even discussion of the concept of democracy.  

The Colonel will save you some time.  "Democracy" does not appear anywhere in either document.

But, back to Newburgh...  

Washington got wind of the called meeting, denounced the "disorderly" nature of the proposed meeting, and instead issued an order sanctioning a meeting to occur on the 15th.  Washington ordered Gates to preside over the meeting and to prepare a report of the grievances to be made to the Commander in Chief.

Gates and the officers of the army did as commanded by Washington.  Shortly after Gates gaveled the meeting to order, Washington, to the surprise and astonishment of all, strode into the meeting hall and took the stage.

His address to his officers denounced the conspiracy and its intentions, and appealed to their professionalism and patriotism, but seemed to fall on deaf hears.  The army held Washington and his leadership in the highest esteem, but his exhortation at this point was no match for their exasperation.  

The Colonel believes that study of Washington's Newburgh Address should be mandatory for all members and prospective members of the U.S. military's officer corps.  It is a passionate plea, not for "democratic" ideals, but for a professional consideration of "republicanism" in which the rights and privileges of all are best promoted and protected.   

A member of Washington's staff in 1783 -- David Cobb -- wrote in 1825, "I have ever considered that the United States are indebted for their republican form of government solely to the firm and determined republicanism of George Washington at this time.

But, at the end of his prepared speech to the officers assembled there at Newburgh in the cold, late winter of 1783, the passions of the majority still ran hot for action.  Washington sensed his failure to sway the majority -- democracy was howling and ready to go on the prowl.  He searched for the right words to add to his argument, and then remembered a letter from a member of the Continental Congress who had promised Washington that they were doing everything in their power to compensate and reward the sacrifices of the men of the Continental Army.  Washington reached into the pocket of his coat, withdrew and unfolded the letter.  He then realized that he couldn't focus on the writing.

Washington paused, and then did something then considered unprofessional for an officer to do in public and completely out of character for the Commander in Chief -- he donned a pair of reading glasses.  Witnesses later said that the entire assemblage drew breath in an astonished gasp.  Washington apologized humbly, saying, "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country." 

Whether or not it was intentional stagecraft on Washington's part will never be known.  Washington's stature and character was such that no one ever thereafter dared ask him about the incident.  And, no record exists that Washington ever mentioned it.   

Washington's officers, unswayed by the words of his prepared speech, were thunderstruck instead by his example of personal sacrifice.  They disbanded their democracy, and the future Republic was saved.

If any man were truly capable of pulling off the coup contemplated by the Newburgh conspirators it was Washington.  He could have been the "democratically" approved King of America, had is character been so inclined.  Instead, he was an honorable man.  The indispensable man of his generation.  The Father of our Republic.

The Colonel prays for our nation principled, Constitutional, (little "r") republican patriots like Washington.  He also prays for republican enlightenment for those who would use democracy to gain socialist power by leveraging the material desires of the majority against the liberty and best interests of We the People.    

Flag Raising Remembrances

The iconic image captured by Joe Rosenthal on the summit of Iwo Jima's volcano, Suribachi, stirred a nation and remains the most ubiquitous symbol of American warrior heroism. 

Seventy-four years ago today, four days after storming ashore across fire-swept beaches, a Marine patrol reached the top of the lone mountain overlooking the tiny Japanese-held island astride the American axis of advance to Tokyo. The Marines raised a small American flag. It was replaced shortly thereafter by a much larger flag, the raising of which was caught on film by both a motion picture cameraman and in a snap-shot by Rosenthal. 

The photographic record of the event, including a staged picture of Marines cheering the flag-raising was sent back to the United States and Rosenthal figured that picture would be the one that would make the papers, not the one of the second flag-raising. But, there was something about the almost accidental picture that captured the imagination of everyone Stateside.

The Colonel has heard many speakers try to explain, some very eloquently and convincingly, why the now-famous image has so ingrained itself in the American psyche. Suffice to say, there are certain elements of the picture that lend themselves to tradition, legend, and example. Study the picture and you will quickly see that none of the flag-raisers' faces are discernible -- it is an "everyman" image into which any American can impose his or her self. 

More, every member of the flag-raising team is either in the act of an important function of the mission, or attempting to contribute -- there are no bystanders. None of the group are doing anything particularly heroic--yet, they represent an entire generation of heroes.

The thing the Colonel likes most about the image is that the men are raising and honoring the symbol of our nation. They aren't draping themselves in the flag. They aren't using it for their own purposes of personal aggrandizement. They aren't imposing themselves in front of it. There is a striking sense of humility and subordination of self to the best interests of the nation for which that flag stands. The flag is not perfectly displayed, it's staff has not reached it's pull upright potential -- much like the nation for which it stands.

The Colonel has a painted reproduction of the Iwo Jima Flag Raising in a place of honor on the wall of his study. It was a gift from a team of Marines he had been privileged to lead for three years, from 1990 to 1993. One of those Marines, Master Gunnery Sergeant Vickers, was the artist. It is a most prized possession, among a collection of many prized possessions from the Colonel's active duty career as a Marine.

The Colonel feels a profound sense of sorrow for those Americans whose most prized possessions do not include a representation of the symbol of the nation that has made possession of personal property such a cherished right.

Liberty Loves Company

The Colonel is not a big fan of walls and fences -- they tend to limit the freedom of both physical and spiritual movement within as well as without.
   
It will be no surprise to the half dozen regular readers of posts hereon (who prove by their persistence not so much loyalty as a complete lack of any other use of their valuable rod and cone time) that the Colonel is, among other things that set most folks' teeth on edge, an unapologetic proponent of a revival of the strategic movement that is the second most important reason for our Republic's greatness.

The first most important reason for our Republic's greatness is, of course, the remarkable form of limited government, with expansive protections of individual and state rights, guaranteed by our Constitution. 

The second most important reason for our Republic's greatness, and the spiritual renewal for which the Colonel calls, is expansion.

Expansion is as much a spiritual concept as it is a physical requirement for greatness.   

Were our ancestors as timid and cowed by tyrannical governments as we  -- more concerned about what the dictatorially bureaucratic few allow than by what the God-given rights of man demand -- the United States of America would never have become the greatest nation the world has ever seen (the Colonel has seen most of the other candidates for that laurel either personally or by historical study and can easily attest to our Republic's place at the top of the list).  Had 18th Century Americans obeyed the restrictive dictates of a distant king, they would have remained huddled behind the Alleghenies.  They would have exhausted the resources on the Eastern Seaboard and then stunted both physically and spiritually. 

Our ancestors did not remain huddled behind the Alleghenies.  In fact, well before they officially declared independence, they openly disobeyed that distant king's royal decree that they remain so huddled and headed west.  They crossed the physical wall of the  Alleghenies -- free rangers determined to live free and prosper.

Funny thing about freedom -- it breeds a desire for more of it.  Once a man shakes off the shackles of fear of the unknown, declares his independence of the bureaucratic boundaries imposed upon him by other men, and claims his God-given birthrights of life, liberty, and property, he becomes a truly FREE man.

Free men don't depend on government for their bread.  Free men  collectively agree to limited government in order to provide a level economic playing field, infrastructure, and liberty to earn their bread.  

Free men collectively agree to maintain a common defense against entities that would restrict their freedom.

Another funny thing about freedom -- it breeds a desire to share it with others.  Liberty loves company more than misery does.  A company of free men may share hardship and deprivation, but they will never count it as miserable.  This old Marine infantryman knows a little about voluntary shared hardship and deprivation and he retains only the fond memories of free men toiling to maintain freedom for their families and countrymen, and toiling to secure the freedom of others whose tyrannical governments deny it.  In that there is no real misery.

Today our Republic is embroiled in the myopic inward-focused politics of grasping for a larger slice of the power pie.  It's what happens to all empires when they cease expansion.  An inward focused empire erects walls to protect the power pie.  One power-seeking political faction builds outward-facing walls to maintain the power status quo ("we got ours; get your own").  Another power-seeking political faction builds internal walls to restrict individual freedom ("you got too much; you gotta share it").

When a nation thinks there's only one pie -- forgets or forsakes the ingredients for baking more pies -- it loses the spirit of liberty.  Our nation has lost the spirit of liberty.

When the greatest nation on the planet loses the spirit of liberty, the rest of the world suffers.  The greatest gift a free people give to another people is the ingredients to the freedom pie.  We've forsaken the ingredients for our own unrestricted freedom pie bakery, and worst still, are refusing to share it with others. 

What our nation needs is a return to the ideal that liberty loves company. 

That's why the Colonel is an unapologetic American Expansionist.  He believes, without a shadow of a doubt in his military mind, that the American form of government is the greatest, most liberty-protecting, freedom pie baking form of government the world has ever seen.  He believed that fervently in the halcyon days of his young adulthood when he swore a solemn oath backed by his very life to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic."  That fervor has only grown with time, and he is no less bound by that oath today than he was at 18.

The Colonel believes with every fiber of his being that our Republic must continue to expand if it wants to endure.  

There's a very good reason, the Colonel believes, that the founders of our Republic did not choose to name the new nation rising from the spiritual revival of liberty, the United States of North America.  There was no intent to restrict the blessings of liberty. Certainly not to the eastern seaboard of the North American continent.  Frankly, there was no intent to withhold the blessings of liberty guaranteed by the Constitution to anyone, anywhere.

Article IV, Section 3.1 of the Constitution of the United States, ratified by the original 13 States, specifically foresees the expansion of the Republic -- with only internal limitation as to geographic location: 

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

States have been Constitutionally admitted to the union of the original 13 States that were physically separated from the then-contiguous states of the Union -- California, Hawaii, and Alaska, for example. 

Other sovereign nations have been Constitutionally admitted to the Union as states -- Vermont, Texas, and Hawaii. 

Most of the current states Constitutionally admitted to the United States subsequent to the original 13 were people living in territories claimed by the United States as a result of occupation following hostilities with other nations -- France, Great Britain, Spain, etc.  The United States still possesses territories liberated and seized as a result of hostilities with Spain -- Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific; and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands in the Caribbean -- all of which could Constitutionally be admitted as states.  

Parenthetically, the Colonel believes that no such Constitutional right of statehood belongs to the District of Columbia, as Article I, Section 8.17 of the Constitution makes clear: "The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such Dis­trict (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Con­gress, become the Seat of the Gov­ernment of the United States…"  Indeed, Madison, the chief architect of the Constitution, wrote in the Federalist #43 that,

"The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government car­ries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insult­ed and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy."

So, no statehood for the federal District of Columbia.

Statehood, then, for the other U.S. territories if they so desire?  The Colonel says, unequivocally, YES!  And, by logical extension, statehood for future territories in the Americas, or elsewhere,  liberated from tyrannical governments unable or unwilling to guarantee their suffering citizens their God-given rights of life, liberty, and property. 

Our Republic was not founded to be static -- neither physically nor spiritually.  Liberty loves company.  Loving your fellow man means sharing the ingredients of the liberty pie with him.  The Colonel knows of no other constitution in the world that produces a liberty pie as sweet as the one to which he has pledged his own sacred honor.    

What is the logical, honorable extension of the Colonel's argument?

Expansion of the Republic.  We're not the United States of North America.  From the Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego, we should be the United States of America!     
       

   

                    

             

Free the Children

The Colonel is an abolitionist.  He fervently hopes that he will live long enough to participate in the coming war to free the children, and the subsequent "reconstruction" of states found in rebellion to the Constitution.

In 1860, the people of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln to the office of President.  For several decades prior to his inauguration, the issue of slavery had divided the nation culturally and politically.  Generally speaking, the largely agrarian southern half of the nation viewed slave labor as an economic necessity -- particularly on large acreage plantations.  The much more industrialized (and rapidly becoming more so), and small farm dominated northern half of the nation, which benefited from massive European immigration flows to its manufacturing centers, was far less economically dependent on slave labor.

As the Republic grew, adding new states whose clout in Congress affected the balance of political power, legislative compromises kept a rough political balance between "slave" and "free" states; but the inhumane practice of chattel slavery remained a belying blight on the moral standing of a nation that professed the God-given rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to "all" men in its founding documents.

As abolitionist fervor grew in the northern states and the southern states felt their 10th Amendment rights ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") under threat, and sectional tension increased, "slave state" politicians (most of whom were slaveholders -- as opposed to the vast majority of their constituents) saw secession from the Union as the only means of maintaining their socio-economic status quo.

"States Rights!" was the secessionist battle cry.

Of course for the states in rebellion, "states rights" ultimately meant a state's right to maintain the institution of slavery.  The southern canard that the Civil War was fought for "economic reasons" and was "not about slavery" fails to admit that the South's "economic reason" was slavery. 

"Free the slaves!" was the Union battle cry.

But..., not necessarily at first.  "Preserve the Union!" was actually the initial battle cry, reflecting the main war aim of Lincoln and company.  It wasn't until several early battles, far bloodier than anyone had imagined, presaged a long war that would have a far greater cost in men and material than anyone had imagined, that the necessity for wrapping the Union cause in religious fervor became evident.

Abolitionist sentiment, whipped to a religious fever pitch from Northern pulpits, soon became a far more palatable reason for continuing the horrors of war than merely preserving the Union.  The Battle Hymn of the Republic, with its stirring abolitionist themes, actually didn't make an appearance and gain any usage until well into the war    

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,

With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.

       As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free..."

                                                    

In an article "Did Religion Make the American Civil War Worse?" published in August 23, 2015 edition of "The Atlantic" Allen Guelzo wrote,

     "If, in Jefferson’s words, the Constitution had erected a 'wall of separation' between the church and the federal government, there was no corresponding wall between church and culture. Closed off from making policy, churches organized independent societies for Bible distribution, for alcoholism reform, for observance of the Sabbath, and for suppressing vice and immorality. And, they grew. By the time the French liberal Alexis de Tocqueville took his celebrated tour of the United States in the 1830s, he was amazed to find that while 'in the United States religion' has no 'influence on the laws or on the details of political opinions,' nevertheless, 'it directs the mores' and through that 'it works to regulate the state.'"

Guelzo's premise (based in part on books by Harvard president Drew Faust, and Yale’s Harry Stout) was that religious fervor in the mid-1850s was a major contributor to the unprecedented carnage wreaked by the Civil War and that the United States' war aim of preserving the Union, if not initially driven by religious zeal to right a moral wrong, came to that notion as the only way to justify continuance of a war whose horrendous human toll was orders of magnitude beyond what had been expected at its outset.  Guelzo warns,

"A nation guided by realpolitik knows when to cut its losses. A nation blinded by the moral gleam of a 'fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel' and charmed by the eloquence of a president with an uncanny knack for making his assessment of political problems sound like the Sermon on the Mount, obeys no such limitations."

In other words, a sense of a particular immorality, especially a wrong against humanity, buoyed by religious standards and proscriptions, becomes not just casus belli ("cause for war" for you LSU grads), but ultimately the force that propels one side so imbued to victory, no matter the cost.              

In this, the Colonel thinks, is a warning of things to come in our Republic.  

The Colonel believes that a great moral question -- greater even than the inhumanity of slavery which divided our Republic in the early 19th Century and led to the greatest loss of life of any war in our nation's history -- divides our nation today.  He speaks, of course, of the issue of killing a child in the womb.  Just as slavery set afire the hearts of the religious 150 years ago, today's commercialized killing of defenseless children is kindling a like flame.  The Colonel knows; it burns in his, and not much stirs the cold, flinty cinder that passes for a heart deep in the military recesses of his chest.

The Colonel believes a Second American Civil War is all but inevitable.  The sides of the conflict are setting up much like they did 150 years ago.  "States' rights" will again be the secessionist battle cry.  "States' rights" meaning the right to maintain the legality of the commercialized procedure that kills an innocent and completely helpless child in the womb, without limitation.  

Apologists for the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life misappropriate the term "slavery," referring to a woman "inconvenienced," "punished," or "handicapped" (their very own words) by carrying an "unwanted" (again, their words) child to full term as a "sexual slave."  Imagine Lincoln's or Martin Luther King, Jr.'s reaction to such a comparison. 

Apologists for the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life hang their legal hats on the "settled law" (their words) of the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.  In Roe, the majority (in a 7 - 2 decision) ruled that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to end an innocent and completely helpless child's life, but that the state's interests in regulating the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life -- the woman's health and the innocent and completely helpless child's viability -- were limited to regulation of the procedure that ends an innocent and completely helpless child's life to the third trimester of pregnancy.

There was a similar law-settling U.S. Supreme Court case prior to the First American Civil War.  In the 1857 Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford , the majority (in a 7 - 2 decision) ruled that people in the United States who had been imported as slaves or were offspring of slaves, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories, and that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.   

In other words, men and women of African descent were NOT afforded the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  A clearly outrageous claim, since repudiated by a catastrophic war and amendments to the Constitution.  What was "settled law" precedent by an overwhelming majority of the United States Supreme Court, was swept aside in a tsunami of blood and humane reason buoyed by religious belief in the sanctity of all human life.  

Never mind that most Constitutional jurists and scholars believe  that Roe's constitutional underpinnings are fabricated out of the thin air of convenience rather than any studied jurisprudence.  No, we are to accept it as "settled law" and an enshrined right simply because it has been on the books for two generations.

By that reasoning, the heinous and inhumane institution of racial segregation should still be accepted practice.  In 1896, the Supreme Court case Plessy v. Fergusson the majority ruled (7 - 1) that, in accordance with the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (the very same Constitutional Amendment from which the 1973 session of the Supreme Court drew a hitherto unknown right to privacy on which to base a woman's right to a procedure to end the life of an innocent and helpless child), states could practice racial segregation of public facilities as long as the denied race had access to roughly equal public facilities of their own.  

Outrageous, no? 

And yet, Plessy was the settled law of the land for three generations.  The "separate but equal" precedent of Plessy was unanimously (9 - 0, for you LSU grads) overturned by the Court's 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.  

That's right, segregation was settled law for fifty-eight years.  

Frankly, the Colonel can not fathom the depths of depravity one must go to place an innocent and helpless child's right to life below that of a man's right to drink from the water fountain of his choice. 

So, here's what the Colonel believes is on the horizon for our Republic:

As more and more judges and justices are appointed to the courts of our lands based on loyalty to the Constitution instead of subversion and perversion of its protections of liberty (of all persons) and prohibitions of government tyranny, the injustices and harm done over the last half century by judges and justices legislating from the bench will be overturned and reversed as surely as Brown overturned Plessy.

This, of course will not sit well with those who prefer personal convenience over constitutionality.  The Colonel refers to those socialists who couldn't care less about the Constitution and who have congregated in a minority of states that are increasingly hostile to the federal government's enforcement of the Constitution in matters of life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness for its CITIZENS.  When Roe, and other cherished socialist decisions, are challenged and lost, the socialist legislatures of those states will take more and more anti-federal steps, the likes of which will make the current anti-federal sanctuary laws look like child's play.  

The federal government's hand will eventually be forced. 

Federal troops will be sent to restore constitutionality.

Don't think it can happen?  Look at Little Rock, Arkansas in 1956 or Oxford, Mississippi in 1962.

What's the worse case scenario?  Socialist-governed state secession from the Union.  Want to talk about precedent?  Try Fort Sumter and the next four years of carnage on for size.

The official United Nations estimate of the death toll of the legal Atlantic slave trade in the 18th and 19th Centuries is seventeen million.  That number eclipses the loss of life during the First American Civil War by over 20 times.  

Nearly fifty million innocent and completely helpless children have lost their lives to the legalized and, shamefully, commercialized practice of abortion.  That number eclipses the loss of life in all of America's wars by nearly a factor of 40.

The Colonel is okay with a Second American Civil War to free the children, and the subsequent reconstruction of the socialists found in rebellion to the Constitution.  It's what he is trained for.   Heck, it's what he swore a solemn oath to do.  But, if you aren't trained or sworn to that end, perhaps there's another way.

How about we compromise?

What if instead of the federal government subsidizing the commercial killing of innocent and completely helpless children, that money was instead set aside to fund the adoption of those children by people who desperately want them?

Might just derail the coming train wreck that will be the Second American Civil War.  

Of course, that would ruin the chance for the Colonel and his kind to march into secessionist territory and stand on the necks of the rebels.  But, that's the nature of compromise.                   


    

Nomenclature

“You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be. And one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid…. You refuse to do it because you want to live longer…. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab you, or shoot at you or bomb your house; so you refuse to take the stand.

Well, you may go on and live until you are 90, but you’re just as dead at 38 as you would be at 90. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.”

     -- Martin Luther King Jr.

Here's where the Colonel stands.  The Colonel is a critically thinking, classically liberal, socially conservative, anti-fascist, (little "r") republican, (big "C") Constitutionalist.

If that nomenclature seems incongruous or doesn't make sense, then you are one, some, or all of the below:

     a) a spoiled, public school-educated member of the very fascist organization known as ANTIFA;

     b) a public school-educated Millennial who thinks the very fascist organization known as ANTIFA is actually anti-fascist;

     c) a low-information voter from either side of the political divide who spends more time generating and sharing Facebook memes poking fun at the other political party and its leaders, than engaging in the critical thought and continuing education required to logically and civilly defend your position on issues of the day;

     d) an LSU or Bama graduate;

     e) a current member of the U.S. Congress

     f) someone with a real life, who has far more important things to do with their time than to spend it, as the Colonel does, researching and writing about the arcane.

Allow the Colonel to break down his name and nomenclature for you:

Colonel.  Military rank achieved during nearly three decades of service as an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps.  (The Colonel remains at a loss to explain how a man of meager talent and ability as he could attain such rank and will have you know that he retired before the Marine Corps made the colossal mistake of making him a general.)

Classically Liberal.  The great thinkers from whose minds and experience the concept of classical liberalism sprung -- Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Robert Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say,  David Ricardo, Thomas Jefferson, and other critical thinkers -- saw free market capitalism as the greatest guarantor of both an individual's opportunity to achieve self-actualization (not a term they used at the time) and a society's opportunity to thrive economically.  A classical liberal sees the modern social liberal (read: socialist) welfare state as antithetical to the above and actually preventive of individual self-actualization and society's economic prosperity.  A classical liberal believes in a limited government (like the one designed by the crafters of the U.S. Constitution) which purpose is limited to:

     -- the protection of individual rights
     -- the provision of services not provided in a free market
     -- the provision of a common defense against foreign invaders
     -- the enactment and enforcement of civil laws
     -- ensuring a stable currency and appropriate infrastructure for             communications and commerce 

* It should be noted that, contrary to the currently popular and uneducated socialist canard, the perceived comparative decline in economic opportunity and standard of living for the most recent generations is NOT due to any excesses or imperfections in free market capitalism, but rather, has been brought about primarily as a result of the socialist abandonment of free market capitalism in favor of the welfare state and central economic planning.  Many uninformed social liberals point to Sweden as an example of the success of their concept of "democratic socialism."  The truth is  that Sweden's abandonment of classical liberalism and free market capitalism to experiment with radical democratic socialism nearly wrecked their economy and was demonstrating dramatic declines in individual liberty and economic productivity until recently arrested by classical liberal governmental and economic reforms that have restored Sweden's vibrancy -- in other words, Sweden looks so good today precisely because they are returning to free market capitalism and away from statism and the welfare state.  

Socially Conservative.  The foundation of the Colonel's social conservatism is his personal relationship with his Creator (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), made possible by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, faith in whom animates the Colonel by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The Colonel takes no side on any social issue without consideration of God's will for him.  God's spirit not only convicts the Colonel of personal sin, but also grants him (and all who seek His will) spiritual discernment to know what is right in His eyes and what is the Colonel's right actions toward others.  In other words, the Colonel's social conservatism is not his personal position -- it is the position God convicts him to take.  It is the position of grace toward all other humans.  

*The Colonel recognizes that he ain't real graceful toward others most times -- this post included.  He ain't perfect, but God's not through with him yet.    

Anti-fascist.  Websters Dictionary defines fascism as: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition [italics, the Colonel's]." 

Fascism, as the Colonel opposes it and as is otherwise defined, is a concept for the creation of a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture.  Practitioners of fascism are uninhibited in their use of violence as a tool for persuading others to accede to their viewpoint. 

(The very fascist organization which moronically calls itself ANTIFA is the very living, breathing, hypocritically incarnate definition of fascism.)     

Dictatorial, or authoritarian, fascism has been the end result of nearly every society's headlong dive into the socialist shallow end of the governmental systems pool.  Those who wish to impose a socialist system on the American people (in direct opposition to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution) disguise their motives by placing the word "democratic" in the title, "Democratic Socialism."  To the history-challenged and politically uninformed, this makes this brand of socialism sound almost benign.  But, make no mistake, democratic socialism is in fact mob rule over a forced wealth redistribution (as opposed to voluntary charity) system that will always place the most charismatic tyrants in charge.
    
The goal of democratic socialism, in its proponents' and practitioners' own words, is:

"that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives." (Platform of the Democratic Socialist Party of America)

The above sounds really nice and all..., but it ain't what our nation was founded on and for -- far, far from it.  Our current system of government (at least the one enshrined in our Constitution) already guarantees the opportunity for "ordinary Americans" to "participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."  Which leads the Colonel to his last points.

The Colonel is a (big "C") Constitutionalist.  The Colonel loves and reveres the Constitution of the United States and the representative republic (NOT a democracy) that it (by "We the People") created and sustains.  And not just because he swore a solemn and everlasting oath to "support and defend" with his life.  The Colonel loves and reveres the U.S. Constitution because he KNOWS it, and in the knowing -- in the continuing study and rediscovery of its genius and corrected flaws -- the Colonel finds an abiding appreciation for the checks and balances that both give voice to the "ordinary Americans" and protects them from their own excesses of partisanship and avarice.  

The Colonel is a (little "r") republican because his knowledge of history and albeit marginal ability to think critically informs him that unchecked democracies always implode into tyranny.  The U.S. Constitution was written by men whose knowledge of history and ability to think critically informed them that, in the Colonel's words, "There's a fine, popular line between freedom and tyranny. A strict interpretation of the United States' Constitution keeps that line bright and visible." 

Far more learned men than the Colonel, acting on far more wise principle than he, subordinated their own partisanship and avarice to create and sustain the Constitution of the United States and the representative republican form of government for which it is the Peoples' guidebook.  

Far be it from the Colonel to consider, let alone advocate, any other system of government for the People of America... and the Americas. 

All the foregoing being said, if the People of our land do decide in democratic fervor to once again "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them," the Colonel stands ready to assume the mantle of responsibility as a relatively  benevolent dictator.

Let's pray, for all our sake, it never comes to that.   

Confessions of a Carbaholic

The Colonel has a confession to make public.  The guilt of his transgression is growing inside of him like an alien in Sigourney Weaver's belly and he has to fess up early, or later give unnatural birth to a monstrous scandal.

The Colonel had a chocolate chip cookie for dessert last night. 

There! 

Whew!

The Colonel can feel the beast dying inside, dissolving in the second mug of black coffee-induced gastric juices flooding past the check valve missing since his cholecystectomy.

(For the proud GED-holders who make up the vast majority of the Bama and LSU fan bases, a cholecystectomy is the surgical procedure in which one is liberated from a malfunctioning gall bladder and then is subsequently relegated to a life of measuring distances to the nearest restroom.)

The Colonel knows, one chocolate chip cookie isn't the dieters'  crime of the century, but..., for a carbaholic like him, chocolate chip cookies are a gateway drug.  

The sugar high from a fistful of cookies cannot be replicated by just another fistful.  

Next comes ice cream.

And, not just a taste of ice cream in a small desert goblet -- we're talking a medium sized mixing bowl of straight, uncut vanilla, garnished with a fistful of chocolate cookies.  

Oh..., did the Colonel mention that, during his retirement physical sixteen years ago, he was diagnosed as a Type II Diabetic?

Could've had a little something to do with a life of self-medication for his career's physical and mental stress with massive amounts of sweets.  The Colonel is painfully aware that he has no one to blame but himself.  

Here's the point where folks who know the Colonel well say, "But, but..., you are so skinny and stayed so physically active as a Marine!  Didn't you get enough stress relief from the 'runner's high'?"

Runner's high?  You mean the other gateway drug?

The first thing the Colonel did after a long run was accentuate the "runner's high" with a candy bar or three. 

The sheer mass of sugary empty calories the Colonel has ingested over his lifetime, if placed in a pile in the middle of one of his fields here aboard his vast holdings at the shallow northern end of deep southern nowhere, would implode to the density of a singularity at the center of a tiny black hole that would easily consume the planet.

Okay..., the Colonel exaggerates.

The sucrose singularity of the tiny black hole wouldn't consume the whole planet -- just the northwestern quadrant of the globe, leaving the big blue marble looking like the not-quite completed death star in the movie, "St...

You get the picture.

The day after last Thanksgiving, the Colonel stepped onto the bathroom scales...

He quickly stepped off and went looking for his reading cheaters.  

The cheaters didn't change the number on the scale's digital readout.  Well..., maybe they added an ounce or two...  

The Colonel was a good twenty pounds in excess of his "fighting weight."  He immediately placed himself on the Army of Northern Mississippi's (for which organization he is the commanding general..., and one-man fighting force) Weight Control and Physical Appearance Program. 

The Colonel had an appointment with his doctor a couple of weeks later...

"Colonel, your weight is up a few pounds since your last visit, and your A1C is north of 8.  Are you still staying active?"

"Active?  His scales indicate the Colonel has been actively ingesting any and all foodstuffs within reach."

The doctor looked over his shoulder, "Who are you talking about?"

"Using the third person to self-refer, Doc.  It's the Colonel's verbal version of nails on a chalkboard -- keeps potential threats on edge."

"Not working," Doc pointed at the A1C number on the Colonel's chart.  "We need to get that number down below 7." 

"We? Doc, appreciate your empathetic participation in the Colonel's health care," Doc reflexively looked over his shoulder and then back at the Colonel -- now slightly on edge, "but, this is all on the Colonel.  Started a diet two weeks ago." 

"You picked the wrong time of year to do that." Doc's usually soothing bedside manner was replaced by a more edgy delivery.  The Colonel resisted taking advantage of a "told you so" moment.

"Well, Doc," the Colonel drew himself up to his full 5 foot 6 and 3/4s (don't ever forget the 3/4s), "the Colonel ain't smart and you can't make him." 


Seven weeks into his self-imposed torture regimen (aka: low-carb diet) the Colonel is halfway back to his fighting weight.  He's experiencing serious sugar-withdrawal symptoms this morning, but at least the guilt beast in his belly won't have so much fat to burst through.   

             

Apology Owed

The Colonel wishes he could set the clock back forty years and make another run at something he failed miserably.

The first week of January in 1979, the Colonel (then a second lieutenant fresh out of TBS and the Infantry Officer Course) reported for duty with the Second Marine Division at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.  His first operational assignment was as a rifle platoon commander in Company G, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment.

The Marines of Golf Company's third platoon deserved a competent and caring leader -- instead, they got an immature, self-centered, and tactically lost officer whose greatest contribution to their welfare was an early realization of, and quick reliance on, the competence of his platoon sergeant. 

The assessment above comes after forty years of self-evaluation.  At the time, that young Marine second lieutenant thought he was the second coming of Chesty Puller.

He had been led to believe that when he got to "the fleet" there would be a an infantry platoon of forty or so hard-charging Marines just waiting for him to lead them to glory.  All he needed to do was step to the front, wave his arm forward, and three 13-man squads of combat-hungry Marines would follow him to the outskirts of Moscow.

Reality sucks.

To say that Third Platoon, G 2/2 was "under-strength" in January of 1979 isn't so much an understatement as it is an egregious misuse of the word "strength" in any form.

On paper, the Colonel's platoon had 30 Marines.

On paper.

On pavement, the first chilly morning he stood in front of them, the Colonel counted a little over a dozen.

Three ranks of four or five Marines each.

"Sergeant Herrera," the Colonel asked his platoon sergeant, "where's the rest of the platoon?"

"Sir, three on leave, five U.A., two deserters, three in the brig, two FAP (augmenting higher headquarters) to Base," Sergeant Herrera intoned without referring to any notes. 

The Colonel blinked and stole a sideways glance at the rest of the company formation.  The other platoons were likewise far less on pavement than they were on paper.


The next day, Golf Company hiked to a training area a few miles from the barracks and set up bivouac for two nights.  The Colonel's platoon bivouac area consisted of four tents -- two men in each.  

His first field exercise was in command of half a squad.

The Colonel would like to be able to tell you that he trained those few Marines as if he were training a full-strength rifle platoon, making do with what he had.

He can't.

He was depressed beyond measure and he was the most motivated man in the company.

To make matters worse, that terrible lieutenant focused far more on corralling and correcting the platoon's miscreants than on taking care of his Marines -- learning who they were and looking out for their welfare.  That was the Colonel's real job and he failed at it.


The Marine Corps, indeed all of the U.S. military, at the end of the 1970s was in bad shape.  The experience in Vietnam had hardened and taught a generation of young officer and enlisted leaders who would make the Marine Corps their career; but the majority of the ranks were demoralized by the Vietnam aftermath.  In fact the entire nation was demoralized.

The nation's leader, President Carter, himself bemoaned publicly the national "malaise."  He was a good man, and a fair politician.  But he was no leader.  

His lack of leadership was felt all the way down the ranks to the last private in the last squad of the Colonel's platoon.  It is heartbreaking to think of it now.  What a waste.

And, the Colonel proved no better leader.  He wallowed in the muddy pit of self-pity and discouragement that threatened to make the national disgrace of Vietnam the death knell of the Republic and the great institutions (the military chief among them) that kept it alive.  

But..., there were some who didn't wallow.  There were some who refused to let the military fall any further.  The Colonel knows many of these great Americans personally.  They were mostly mid-career officers and NCOs coming out of Vietnam, and they didn't give up the ship.  There was also, at the top of the Marine Corps in the late seventies and eighties, a few general officers who made it their mission to drag the Corps out of its malaise -- to return it to the high standards of discipline and military excellence that had marked Marines as the world's finest.

Two of the giants of our Corps' history -- two southern gentlemen whose soft-spoken manner belied spines of steel and resolve -- Generals Louis H. Wilson of Mississippi and Robert H. Barrow of Louisiana, both highly decorated veterans of combat in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, were the rocks upon which the tides of the Marine Corps' post-Vietnam dissipation broke.  As the 26th and 27th Commandants of the Marine Corps, their seamless and sterling leadership for eight years righted the ship and restored discipline and focus to the Marines.  Their example and exertions set the tone for the next generation of leaders whose modernization (both equipment and warfighting doctrine) of the Marine Corps was validated in the stunning operational successes of the last three decades.

The Colonel almost left the Corps when his four-year commitment ended in 1982.

Almost.

He had even signed paperwork resigning his commission.

The comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda changed his mind.  She wisely saw that the Marine Corps, and not Frito-Lay, was the Colonel's future.

Luckily for him -- and for the Marines he would later lead -- the next five years exposed him to some of the finest leaders with whom he ever served.  When he returned to the Second Marine Division in 1987, this time to serve as a company commander, he was no longer the worst junior leader in the history of the Corps.

He wasn't the best leader in the history of the Corps...

Probably not even in the top half...

But, he knew what his purpose and mission was.

The Colonel owes his modest success in command as a captain, major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel to great peers and seniors who taught him by example -- an example which placed the welfare of his Marines on co-equal footing with a laser focus on mission accomplishment.

The Colonel owes something else as well.

He owes the thirty Marines of 3rd Platoon, Company G, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment in January of 1979 an apology.  He shamefully knows not where a single member of that platoon is today.  He wishes he could gather them together in a school circle and talk to them as equals -- tell them they are remembered as his greatest failure.  But, he would also tell them that the shame of that failure fired his soul to do better.

The Colonel may have failed them.  But they didn't fail the Colonel.           

Leaves, Lighthouses, and Liberty

It's taken the better part of a week, but the Colonel has just about fully recovered from his latest "vacation."

On the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda's, and the Colonel's, bucket list was a trip to Maine and New Hampshire in the early fall to look at leaves and lighthouses.  A flight to Boston from Memphis (the nearest airport to the Colonel's vast holdings here at the shallow northern end of deep southern nowhere) got them deep enough into enemy territory to be able to claim operational long-range reconnaissance patrol status, and before the leaf peeping and lighthouse looking could commence in earnest, a walking tour of Beantown was in order. 

Eleven point oh one miles later (not gonna make the Colonel a liar over one one-hundredth of a mile) the Colonel and his bride proclaimed, "Check!", and headed for Portland.

Maine, that is.

"Lobsta."

Lighthouses.

Long, circuitous drives in search of said lighthouses.

Long, excruciatingly stays at the site of each lighthouse while the comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda photographed each from every conceivable angle save that of a drowning sailor.

Wait, you want to know why the Colonel didn't talk about what he saw in Boston?  You probably think the Colonel's love of history would have made a walking-tour immersion into mid-18th Century colonial unrest over a distant and tyrannical government's high taxation and restriction of self-governance the highlight of the entire week-long trip.

Meh.  Experiencing enough of that here early in the 21st Century.

In fact, Colonial Americans enjoyed far lower taxation and far greater local political freedom than do 21st Century Americans...  but, that's grist for another post. 

The comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda did get her picture taken in Cheers, so the Boston death march was not a total waste.

With the lighthouses of coastal Maine in the rear-view mirror, the Colonel and his best friend drove west into the White Mountains -- the Colonel wonders how long that appellation will withstand the incessant encroachment of political correctness on freedom and common sense -- and settled in for a few days of taking pictures of every single orange leaf, covered bridge, and waterfall in the entire region of central New Hampshire.

The White Mountains are quite picturesque in the fall -- no doubt about it.  The comely and kind-hearted Miss Brenda has extensive photographic evidence. 

The highlight of the trip -- for the Colonel, anyway -- was a visit to Lexington and Concord on the exfil leg of the patrol.  

The Colonel is pleased to report that his movement from Concord back to Boston went a lot more smoothly than it did for the red-coated regulars on the 19th of April in 1775.   He tried to imagine, at various stops on the route, the terror and frustration felt by the King's soldiers as they were ambushed and harried by a swelling horde of farmers armed with firearms that in many cases were superior to their own.  "Aren't these folks British, too?" they must have wondered.  "How dare they defy the King's authority!"

The Colonel also tried to imagine what motivated thousands of farmers from across middle Massachusetts to converge on the Redcoat column that day.  Why did the man, whose farm and family outside of Bedford were not really threatened by the British regulars' occupation of Boston, answer the call to arms against the King's troops?  What motivated him?  Was he afraid that the Redcoats would expand their occupation of Boston to farms and villages of the interior?  Wouldn't his, and his fellows', act of violent rebellion on the 19th of April make expansion of regular army activity outside of Boston more possible? 

The Colonel doesn't believe that the man from Bedford was animated by some grand notion of American independence or a philosophical principle regarding the inherent rights of man.  No, it is far more likely that the man from Bedford grabbed his firearm and joined his neighbors and friends because they were his neighbors and friends. He wasn't going to be the man to say, "No, son, I wasn't there.  I didn't go when my friends went.  It wasn't my fight."

The Colonel believes -- without a doubt in his military mind, and, without a qualm about the contradiction -- that what really motivates men to acts of righteous violence is love.  Men dress it up in manly terminology -- comradeship..., loyalty..., honor -- but the motivator is love.

And love is local. 

When the next revolution comes -- and it will come, it always does -- the spark may be a single man's action, or a single bureaucrat's over-reach.  But, the fuel for the fire will be the bonds between neighbors and friends.

So it was in the spring of 1775.  The farmers who chased the regulars back into Boston, and who then formed the thousands occupying the heights around Boston, had far more pressing personal requirements.  They had planting to do.  But, the majority stayed on the heights.  Not for American independence -- that notion was still a year away from Jefferson's illumination and the Continental Congress' grudging declaration.  

The man from Bedford stayed on the heights because his friends and neighbors stayed.  

Liberty springs from local love.