Homeschooling, What if

Homeschool challenge — what if?

(c) 2013 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

“In 1814 we took a little trip…”

We all know the song. And we know that the Battle of New Orleans was militarily insignificant because the Treat of Ghent had been signed sometime earlier, but during the siege. The battle is insignificant because Jackson won. What could have happened had Packenham had won.

In the novel For Want of a Nail, Robert Sobol explores a history of what might have happened had Burgoyne defeated Arnold at Saratoga. The genre of alternative history is entertaining, but it also could be a philosophical exercise.

I am offering this homeschool challenge so that younger folks will look up history and conditions in the early nineteenth century and explore an alternative that might have occurred. This is not the Miniver Cheevy version of reality, but the realization that things can turn out either way. No outcome is predestined.

The challenge is: What would have happened if Jackson had lost at New Orleans?

You might say, “That’s silly, the treaty was signed.” But treaties have, throughout history, been abrogated when they become inconvenient. Ambitious men, not unlike Packenham, have schemed to achieve wealth and power and knew how to seize opportunity.  For example, Aaron Burr and James Wilkinson were alleged to be plotting an empire in the Spanish province of Texas which Bonaparte included in the quit-claim deed to Louisiana and the United States would cede back to Spain in 1819.

How could Jackson have lost? Every battle holds that possibility. Custer’s intelligence told him he was approaching an unarmed village. The coalitions could have fallen apart. The Lafitte brothers could have negotiated an agreement with the crown for amnesty in exchange for their loyalty. The Haitians could have felt they would be better off under British rule—the Brits were offering slaves freedom for defection. The backwoodsmen could have buckled.

What would the British have done? Who controls the port of New Orleans, controls the Mississippi. Would they have just grabbed the city and extorted the Americans? Or taken the Louisiana Purchase in toto? Might some adventurers have set up their own empire?

What would be the reactions of the Americans? What would Spain have done? Note that Bernardo Galves swept the British from the Mississippi during the American revolution.

Why am I not in the process of writing a novel?  Other than the fact that I’m not good at writing about personal relationships, the amount of research I would do ranges in the five to seven year period and soon will turn 70. I have at least two years of writing from research I have already done.

Some hints: No aliens or UFOs. Look at the legal constraints and whether treaties were inviolate. I am sure the King and Regent would regard the outcome with joy. There was also also an expansionist movement in the states—manifest destiny arose out of populist opinion and Daniel Boone had emigrated to Missouri. Combined with this was Spanish distrust of Britain now that Bonaparte was out of the picture so a British colonial presence would be wedged between Texas and the Mississippi. And there are even more factors out there to be discovered.

REMEMBER:   Tags are guides to further research.


Goodbye federalism

(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.

As I have been re-reading Madison’s notes as edited by Solberg I have picked up on some details that the 23 year old college senior (slow learner) missed. In fact, I would recommend a re-read of a lot of stuff as an adult—you’d be amazed at what holds up and what does not.

But I digress—as most of my friends and relative note…often. Reading Madison’s notes on the federal convention reveals a lot. Many of the debates are still unsettled from day one. What are we as a nation. Do we have a general, national government or a federal republic? I can argue it both ways as my old hero Harold Fatzer did on occasion when he was chosen (by rotation) to write a majority opinion against which he had voted—his majority was solid and well thought out but his dissent was masterful, logical and chiding of the majority. I can write a legal paper on the textual federalism of the Constitution. I fervently support a federal republic and believe the national government has done more to destroy than protect.

I am writing this about the fact and not the law. The Constitution of the United States is regarded as antiquated. Franklin D Roosevelt wrote to Samuel B. Hill, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on July 6, 1935, stating, “I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the suggested legislation.” I did not find a quote for his reference to the Constitution as a “quaint 18th century document,” but the sentiment fits with his attitude toward Congress and the Supreme Court. And I would posit that most in elective office agree.

What Hamilton and a number of people at the Convention preferred was a national government—some went as far as to propose the elimination of states. At that point even Madison was in favor of a stronger central government than he was after persuasion by Jefferson during ratification. The argument was that the states were a roadblock to a strong (read militarily powerful) nation. And of course the states were a hindrance to commerce—actually California does not recognize the commerce clause when it comes to firearms and the Ninth Circuit says fine.

If I end up interspersing current events with this it is that the same forces are at work today and this is about where we are. There is no provision in the Constitution for a national police force. The federal government has 150,000 “law enforcement” personnel which essentially constitute a standing army within our borders while the natural defense of society—the militia of the people—is further infringed. George Mason who drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights wrote in Section 13: “That a well-regulated militia, or composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” The Department of Homeland Security has become a power unto itself and has voided much of what is left of federalism. Does this bother the electorate—hint, the candidates are both believers in national government. As Clinton and Bush gave up their defense of their gubernatorial powers when they arrived at the juncture of New York and Pennsylvania Avenues, so too will Romney if elected.

The arguments ranged back and forth on the merits of democratic election versus a republic. And at the Convention, there was a compromise. We are told today by those who wish a more powerful and intrusive government that compromise is not a bad thing. The Senate was to be selected by the legislatures of the states as a bone to the republicans. The fear was that a complete democracy would endanger the rights of all. As the growth of democracy gained power in the 19th Century, the Progressives manipulated the Populists into assenting to their power grab and the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 leaving the Senate of the United States unaccountable to those states they represent.

The situation we are in now—a national, central and unaccountable government—is not a failure of democracy but rather the natural consequence of democracy. It arises out of a public school system which has, as its primary mission, the indoctrination of the population in the current political system. This sets them up to accept the demagoguery they became acquainted with in school. Unfortunately the progressives have control of education regardless of who holds the government through the NEA and AFT.

The document remains but the reality is different. The courts and Congress cannot control the Executive because they do not have the will. This is not a new phenomenon of the Clinton-Bush-Obama years. Andrew Jackson once said, “Mr Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

More quotes:

“I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate about me.” Theodore Roosevelt whose 1912 campaign made suggestions about the need to revise the Constitution to give the central government more power.

““The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit; and if Congress be overborne by him, it will be no fault of the makers of the Constitution, – it will be from no lack of constitutional powers on its part, but only because the President has the nation behind him, and the Congress has not.” Woodrow Wilson who believed there was a “transcendent constitution” that superseded the dead written document.

So we are here with a national rather than a federal government that Republicans and Democrats alike are comfortable with.