[Constituting America: Why So Many Ambitious Men Exist in the US, but so few Lofty Ambitions (Vol 2 Pt. 3 Ch. 19)]

Alexis de Tocqueville was a keen observer of America’s emerging civic culture.  His insights on how democracy shapes individual and community existence resonant with us to this day.

In his chapter on ambition, de Tocqueville outlines the attributes of equality in its classic sense.

American democracy in the early 19^th Century provided a framework for liberty and equality in the law and the marketplace.  He celebrated how the framework gave everyone an equal mix of opportunity and challenge.  Such a mix ignited the passion in Americans to seek better lives. 

“The first thing that strikes one in the United States is the innumerable multitude of those who seek to get out of their original condition.”

Individual ambition in a free society was the engine for economic vitality.  Government provides a stable and honest environment for individuals to test themselves against their environment.

De Tocqueville contrasted American equality with the remnants of aristocracy and lust for power.

“So when once the ambitious have power in hand, they believe they can dare all: and when it escapes them, they immediately think of overturning the state to get it back.”

He knew firsthand the extremes that arise from a revolution that topples aristocracy.  His own family endured imprisonment and the guillotine in the wake of the French Revolution.  France’s cycle of chaos, violence, tyranny, and return to aristocracy served as cautionary lessons. 

“As the former barriers that separated the crowd from renown and power are suddenly lowered, an impetuous and universal movement of ascent is made toward this long-envied greatness.”

France never achieved the promise of its revolution.  The French suffered through monarchy, anarchy, revolutions in 1848 and 1870, an Emperor, military humiliation in 1870, and malaise leading to World War. De Tocqueville notes: “The passions that the revolution had prompted do not disappear with it…on all sides one sees disproportionate and unfortunate ambitions ignited that burn secretly and fruitlessly in the hearts that contain them.”

The French revolutionaries strived to change everything.  They even renamed the calendar months, established new weights and measures, and toppled every institution that was tainted by the old regime. Thousands were slaughtered.  Europe was ravaged.

Frenchmen’s lofty ambition to change the world led to their ruin.

Americans’ personal ambition was not to change the world, but to change their personal world. 

America’s cultural strength was unleashing individual creativity to strive for this end. 

De Tocqueville rejoiced in how America’s focus on personal ambition avoided France’s post-revolutionary vortex.

De Tocqueville toured America during an era of unbridled technical achievement.  The Erie Canal went into operation in 1825.  The first segment of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal opened in 1831.  America’s first railroad, the Baltimore Ohio Line, moved freight and passengers starting in 1827.

These were realistic and pragmatic ambitions.  They were human scale for the benefit of humans. 

De Tocqueville understood that what set Americans apart from all other nationalities was their focus on “a multitude of small, very sensible ambitions…they finish many undertakings rapidly rather than raise a few long-lasting monuments; they love success much more than glory.”

He concludes his review of ambition with a warning against complacency. The benefits of democracy and a free society can lead to stagnation and the waning of ambition. 

“I avow that for democratic societies I dread the audacity much less than the mediocrity of desires; what seems to me most to be feared is that in the midst of the small incessant occupations of private life, ambition will lose its spark and its greatness…so that each day the aspect of the social body becomes more tranquil and less lofty.”

For De Tocqueville, leaders “should want one to strive to give them a vaster idea of themselves.”

This is his challenge for America and the ages.

 

 

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

 

[Part of Constituting America's "Ninety for Ninety" Series on America's Founding Principles.

Principle of Freedom of Assembly - Constituting America]

“New England town meetings have proved themselves the wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government and for its preservation."

Thomas Jefferson, 1816

“Local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty.”

Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

The concept of people openly gathering to discuss matters of public interest was developed among the ancient Greek city states in the 6^th Century B.C.  It became known as “Athenian Democracy” under the leadership of Pericles (461-429 B.C.) during Athens’ “Golden Age”.  Participation was open to all adult free male citizens.

In actions that would be repeated throughout history, Athenian public meetings were suppressed to centralize government power.  This occurred in 322 B.C. by the rulers of the Macedonian Empire, first Philip II and then his son, Alexander “the Great”.

Freedom of assembly vanished during the Roman Empire and the feudal states.  People could still petition the chief, warlord, or king for grievances, but local democracy was lost.

Iceland rekindled community-based democracy in 930 A.D. 

The Althing (Norse for “assembly field”) was an open area (near present day Reykjavik) reserved for the annual gathering to discuss and decide issues facing the community.  The presiding official, Lögsögumaður (Norse for “Law Speaker”), stood on a central rock outcropping known as the Lögberg (Norse for “Law Rock”).  He established the procedures for the Althing and declared decisions after open discussion and voting.  All free men had the right to attend and participate.

The Althing lost its authority when Iceland was annexed by Norway in 1262.

In 1231, the freedom of assembly, and early federalism, arose among the various independent regions (Cantons) in Switzerland. The Landsgemeinde (German for "cantonal assembly) was established as a system of direct democracy, open voting, and majority rule among the communitas hominum (Latin for “the community of men”).  This terminology was to emphasize that it was an assembly of all citizens, not just the elite. 

Citizens of the Swiss Cantons fiercely defended their assemblies.  In 1499, they defeated the forces of Emperor Maxmillian I, the Holy Roman Emperor, at the battle of Dornach.  They retain their system to this day.

The practice of holding town meetings in Colonial America evolved from 17^th Century English “vestry” meetings.  These meetings allowed parishioners to discuss and decide issues relating to their local parish.  These became integral to New England communities in the mid to late 1600s.  Their agendas ranged beyond church governance to community matters. 

In 1691, the Colonial Parliament (General Court) of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts passed a Charter that declared that final authority on bylaws rested with town meetings. In 1694, the Massachusetts General Court granted town meetings the authority to appoint assessors. In 1715 it granted town meetings the right to elect their own presiding officers (moderators) instead of relying on outside appointees 

Colonial meeting houses remain places of reverence in small towns throughout New England.

It is not surprising that eradicating town meetings, and restricting the right to free assembly, were key elements in Britan’s suppression of America’s Independence movement in the early 1770s.

Lord North, the British Prime Minister (1770-1790), instituted harsh measures to suppress dissent and disrupt the culture of self-government, which he viewed as the root cause of the chaos.  On May 2, 1774, North declared Massachusetts was "in a distempered state of disturbance and opposition to the laws of the mother country."

On May 20, 1774, the British Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act, which nullified the Massachusetts Charter of 1691. It abolished local town meetings because, “a great abuse has been made of the power of calling them, and the inhabitants have, contrary to the design of their institution, been used to treat upon matters of the most general concerns, and to pass dangerous and unwarrantable resolves.”  Ongoing local meetings were replaced by annual meetings only called with the Colonial Governor’s permission, or not at all.

A series of five punitive acts were passed by Parliament intended to restrict public discourse and punish opponents.  It was England’s hope the “Intolerable Acts” would intimidate rebellious Colonists into submission. The “Acts” ignited a firestorm of outrage throughout Colonial America.  More importantly, it generated a unity of purpose and inspired a willingness for collective action among leaders in the previously fragmented American colonies.

In a bold “illegal” act to assert its right to free assembly, the First Continental Congress met in the Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia from September 5-October 26, 1774. Twelve of the thirteen colonies (Georgia opted out) were represented.  They issued the “Declaration of Rights and Grievances”, the first unified protest of Britian’s anti-colonial actions. 

The British Crown’s assault on the right to free assembly was among the top Grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence less than two years later.

America Opposes Britain’s Power Grab – Right to Assembly

 

[Part of the 90 Day Study: Our Lives, Our Fortunes & Our Sacred Honor – 

Exploring the Declaration of Independence]

90-Day Study Essay Schedule 2021 – Constituting America

Declaration of Independence: Grievance Number 4. “He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.”

Public meetings and public records have been fundamental to representative government since its inception.  They are the basis for resolving differences, forging agreements, and holding public officials accountable.  They are integral to a free society.

It is not surprising that the British Crown’s assault on these fundamentals is among the top Grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence.

The escalating protests over onerous and draconian British Colonial policies and taxes crested with the “Boston Tea Party” on December 16, 1773.  Sons of Liberty activists dumped over a million dollars (in 21^st Century value) of tea into Boston Harbor.

Lord North, the British Prime Minister (1770-1790), retaliated with harsh measures to suppress dissent and disrupt the culture of self-government, which he viewed as the root cause of the chaos. 

On May 2, 1774, North declared Massachusetts was "in a distempered state of disturbance and opposition to the laws of the mother country."

On May 20, 1774, Parliament passed the Massachusetts Government Act, which nullified the Massachusetts Charter of 1691. Under the Act, Royal Governor Thomas Gage dissolved the Massachusetts provincial assembly.  He then required them to meet in Salem, citing Boston as “unsafe”.  

The move to Salem had the intended effect of forcing Massachusetts’ legislators to travel and find food and lodging in a small town of 1,600 instead of among the 16,000 population of Boston.  The infrastructure for supporting legislative operations were nonexistent (stenographers, printers, legal offices, media, and messengers).  

Worse, there was no provision for moving any of the colony’s official records to Salem.  Any research or reference entailed a day’s travel each way from Salem to Boston and back again.  It achieved the British goal of “fatiguing them [legislators] into compliance with his measures”.

Similar actions were taken against the elected assemblies in Virginia and North Carolina.   North Carolina’s legislature was forced from their colonial capital of Brunswick to meet in New Bern.  In Virginia, Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, dissolved the House of Burgesses and refused to call them back into session.  In defiance of the Governor, the colonial representatives reconvened at the Raleigh Tavern in Williamsburg.  Patrick Henry’s famous “Give me liberty, or give me death!” speech was presented during another banned session held at St. John’s Episcopal Church in Richmond (March 23, 1775).

The dislocation and dissolution of these Colonial Legislatures led to the same disruption and “discomfort” experienced by Massachusetts’ elected representatives. The goal of punishing opposition and suppressing dissent was achieved by forcing elected officials into “places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records”.  It certainly interfered with the colony's public business and prevented officials from "access to information necessary to conduct it". Eventually, all Colonial Governors dissolved their legislatures.  

The British Parliament also moved to eradicate local town meetings because, “a great abuse has been made of the power of calling them, and the inhabitants have, contrary to the design of their institution, been used to treat upon matters of the most general concerns, and to pass dangerous and unwarrantable resolves.”  Ongoing local meetings were replaced by annual meetings only called with the Colonial Governor’s permission, or not at all.

A series of five punitive acts were passed by Parliament intended to restrict public discourse and punish opponents.  It was England’s hope the “Intolerable Acts” would intimidate rebellious Colonists into submission. The “Acts” ignited a firestorm of outrage throughout Colonial America.  More importantly, it generated a unity of purpose and inspired a willingness for collective action among leaders in the previously fragmented American colonies.

The First Continental Congress met in the Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia from September 5-October 26, 1774. All colonies, except Georgia, were represented.  They issued the “Declaration of Rights and Grievances” which established a philosophy of government, and list of contentious issues, that would be echoed in the Declaration of Independence less than two years later.

The delegates created the “Continental Association”, which invoked non-importation, non-consumption of British goods, and non-exportation of American goods to England until the “Intolerable Acts” were rescinded.

King George and Lord North responded with a major show of force in Boston.  As British troops became increasingly visible on the city’s streets, Governor Gage created a network of informants to identify and arrest dissidents. 

Alerted to weapons being stockpiled in Lexington, Gage launched the fateful sortie that led to the “shot heard around the world”.

HAMILTON - AMERICA's FIRST CAPITALIST

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

Alexander Hamilton was America’s first Chief Operations Officer (COO).

Along with James Madison, Hamilton crafted the best operating system ever devised in human history.  The U.S. Constitution provided a framework for sharing power and resolving differences.  Madison and Hamilton provided details for operationalizing the Constitution with their Federal Papers essays.  These Papers remain integral to interpreting the original intent for court cases to this day.

America was blessed with George Washington, the most indispensable person in our nation’s history. However, Washington needed to augment his phenomenal leadership skills with Hamilton’s management acumen.  During the American Revolution, Hamilton translated Washington’s military strategy into clear and concise orders to his commanders.  Now as President, Washington needed Hamilton to translate the Founders’ vision, and his policies, into reality.

With Jefferson still conducting diplomacy in Europe, Hamilton became not just the first Treasury Secretary, but effectively functioned as Washington’s “prime minister”.  Decisions and documents, down to minute detail, flowed from Hamilton’s pen, creating the Executive Branch. 

Hamilton’s love of administrative detail was matched by his devotion to commerce.

He was the only “modern man” among the Founders.  Hamilton grew-up outside the American colonies and had a full appreciation of how nations interacted.  As an accounting clerk for various trading companies in the West Indies, Hamilton developed a deep understanding for the inner workings of international trade and finance.  His was America’s first “capitalist”.  The systems and institutions he put in place laid the foundation for America becoming the greatest economic power in the world.

Hamilton greatest achievement was managing the onerous debts arising from the Revolutionary War.  Each state incurred debt as their individual state militias needed to be paid for back wages.  Both national and state level soldiers were paid in bonds or “IOUs”.  After the war many cash-strapped soldiers sold these bonds/“IOUs” to speculators for a fraction of their worth.  Countless suppliers of their armed forces sued for nonpayment.  The paper currency issued during the war was “not worth a Continental” and legions of war veterans, farmers, merchants, and craftsman (like blacksmiths, barrel makers, and carpenters) demanded payment, declaring Continental script were “IOUs”.

The total debt was $79 million: $54 million owed by the national government and $25 million owed by the states.  Hamilton saw repayment of this debt as a strategic and moral imperative: “States, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.”

Without a debt repayment strategy, the IOUs and lawsuits would continue to cripple America’s economy with unbridled speculation and uncertainty. Trust in the Federal government’s ability to meet its obligations had to be restored.  Something had to be done.  Hamilton declared, “In nothing are appearances of greater moment than in whatever regards credit.”

Repayment of debts would allow America to enter into international agreements and borrow funds for investing in business ventures and stimulate economic growth.  Hamilton observed that the American economy was stagnating from a limited money supply, deflation of land values, and no liquid capital. He also was concerned that if America was seen as financially broke and politically fragmented, foreign governments may lure individual states with separate debt financing arrangements. 

The solution was to consolidate all public debt and set aside some of the steady federal revenue to service interest and payoff the principal.  These were revolutionary and futuristic concepts in 1790.

It was his conviction that, “an assumption of the debts of particular states by the union and a like provision for them as for those of the union will be a measure of sound policy and substantial justice.”

Hamilton determined that consolidating all the Revolutionary War debt would accomplish several things.  [1] It would bring order from chaos with one large debt instead of thousands of smaller ones.  [2] It would simplify the management and repayment of the debt. [3] It would establish loyalty among the creditors and bond/IOU holders who would promote the stability and success of the federal government to assure their claims were paid. 

Another aspect of Hamilton’s solution was that the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government the exclusive right to collect import duties.  The Federal Government assuming state debt would prevent states from trying to return to the Article of Confederation when states levied duties on interstate commerce.  Hamilton wanted to unify America and forge a national economy.

The critical element in assuming all debt was to have a unified America attract foreign investment through issuing federal government bonds.  Such bonded debt would create investment partners who would forge trade relationships that allowed the U.S. Government to raise the necessary revenue to meet its debt obligations.  Hamilton sought to create a web of economic loyalties and relationships that bound everyone to supporting everyone’s economic wellbeing.  In doing so, Hamilton would establish America as a major player in the modern international financial system.

Hamilton’s vision and how to implement it, was at the core of his fifty-one-page “Report on Public Credit” to the Congress.  It was his hope that Congress would pass the necessary legislation to authorize implementation of this integrated plan.  Any editions or subtractions would ruin his delicate balance between the various economic interests.  Hamilton worried, “Credit is the entire thing. Every part of it has the nicest sympathy with every other part.  Wound one limb and the whole tree shrinks and decays.”

Many in Congress rejected the plan as confusing and overly complex.  Some saw it as too much like the way England financed its wars.  Other declared it a bailout for speculators.  Even Madison refuted it.  As the assumption plan related to spending, its first test was in the House of Representatives.

The House debate was a sensation.  Packed galleries watched Madison rail against the plan as a “betrayal of the American Revolution”.  Hamilton, a member of the Executive Branch, mustered his votes behind the scenes. On April 12, 1790, the House defeated the debt assumption plan: 29 ayes to 31 nays.

The death of debt assumption found resurrection in the future location of the nation’s capital.  Hamilton and northerners wanted the capital to remain in New York or return to Philadelphia.  Southerners wanted in in the South and located outside an existing urban area.  Jefferson saw this as a struggle between his vision of an agrarian nation versus the grime of industry.  Madison and Henry Lee had purchased land along the Potomac River in the hopes that Jefferson would prevail.

All sides wanted a final decision on the future of the Nation’s Capital, and symbolically the character of the nation.  To break the stalemate, the key players, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and several others gathered for dinner on June 20, 1790, at Jefferson’s townhouse in New York City. 

After much food, libations, and discussion a deal was struck.  The Nation’s Capital would be along the banks of the Potomac between Georgetown in Maryland and Alexandria in Virginia.  In exchange for Hamilton convincing northerners to support this location, Jefferson and Madison would support passage of Hamilton’s Debt Assumption plan.

On July 10, 1790 the House passed the Residence Act moving the temporary Capital back to Philadelphia and designating a ten-square mile area along the Potomac as the permanent Capital.  The House then passed the Assumption bill on July 26.  The Senate approved the plan on August 4, 1790.

Senator Daniel Webster placed Hamilton’s achievement into historical perspective. 

“The fabled birth of Minerva from the brain of Jove was hardly more sudden or perfect than the financial system of the United States as it burst forth from the conception of Alexander Hamilton.”

A Fire Bell in the Night: The Story of Maine Statehood (Part 1)

Guest Essayist: Jeffrey Hollingsworth

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study of State & Local Government]

https://constitutingamerica.org/a-fire-bell-in-the-night-the-story-of-maine-statehood-part-1-guest-essayist-jeffrey-hollingsworth/

Barely 30 years after the contentious adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, the experiment in self-government and democratic republicanism that enraptured de Tocqueville and other noted admirers of the new United States of America was at grave risk of collapse. Maine’s aspirations for statehood were at the heart of the hullabaloo. It was in a wrestling match with Missouri for admission to the Union. In fact, Members of Congress representing the District of Maine, as it was known—then belonging to Massachusetts—voted against legislation that would have admitted their home as a state even after longstanding agitation in Maine for statehood.

So why, when at long last statehood was within reach, did these officials and many of those they represented object to legislation that would unlock the door to statehood? Their reasons are at the heart of why we are “one nation, indivisible” and how small, remote Maine helped preserve the U. S. of A. at a grave hour in its early history.

Earliest Maine: How the Story Began

The first Mainers have been traced to approximately 3,000 BC. They’re known as the “Red Paint People” due to their liberal use of red ochre in pottery and burial rituals. Native American tribes still extant in Maine are the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Micmac and Maliseet.

Why Maine is called “Maine” (the only one-syllable state) still isn’t clear. Some scholars say it was named after the French Province of Maine. Others suggest it’s from a maritime term for “the main” or mainland, to distinguish it from islands. Some sources claim Vikings visited Maine as early as 1000 AD, but the first recorded European was Italian explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano in 1524. Others later included Capt. John Smith (yes, the John Smith) for England and Samuel de Champlain for France.

Champlain fostered an attempted permanent settlement in June 1604 on St. Croix Island off Robbinston, Maine, opposite Bayside, New Brunswick. The colony failed within a year, most settlers felled by “mal de la terre” (scurvy). It was home to the first known Christmas celebration in the New World. The island, though in U.S. waters, is an International Historic Site, the only one in North America, jointly administered by the U.S. and Canadian governments.

Instead of Jamestown, Virginia, the Popham Colony in present-day Phippsburg, Maine, could’ve been the first permanent English settlement in the U.S.A. Sir George Popham and Sir Raleigh Gilbert led 120 English settlers to landfall at the mouth of the Kennebec River in August 1607. Other English settlers had reached today’s Jamestown in mid-May 1607. The Popham colonists started off strongly. They built the first commercial ship ever constructed in the New World, the pinnace Virginia of Sagadahock. This milestone was commemorated by a 1957 U.S. stamp officially recognizing the origin of shipbuilding in the U.S.  Shipbuilding has been a mainstay (no pun intended) of Maine’s economy over the succeeding four-plus centuries.

But the Popham Colony was doomed. After experiencing winter, half the surviving cold, hungry settlers grew disillusioned and fled back to England. Gilbert later received news of his father’s passing and needed to address vital family matters. He left for England, never to return.

Lacking leadership, the remaining colonists abandoned the settlement almost a year to the day after landing. Jamestown’s settlers hung on, though barely. Today, archeological excavations at both sites keep unlocking secrets about our country’s first English settlers.

Maine Grows

From Popham through the next 175 years, Maine ownership shifted from one royal grantee to another. The major promoter of Maine settlement was Sir Ferdinando Gorges, an English aristocrat later dubbed “The Father of English Colonization in North America,” though he never set foot in the New World. With Captain John Mason (a principal colonizer of New Hampshire), Gorges secured a patent from King James I in 1622 for vast territory in Maine. During  the next 50 years, disputes and squabbles over Gorges family holdings and competing land claims finally led Gorges’s grandson to sell all the property to the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1677.

Maine grew slowly but steadily, yet not without incident. Devastating hostilities with Native Americans erupted periodically, and colonial conflicts took their toll. France considered all the land up to the Kennebec River, which bisects Maine, to belong to New France. Its farthest outpost was the present-day town of Castine, which see-sawed between French and British control for decades. In 1674, during a war between France and The Netherlands, Dutch naval forces captured Castine and environs, part of a grandiose venture to establish Nova Hollandia (“New Holland”). Maine suffered further privations during the French & Indian War (1754-63). Then came America’s War for Independence.

Mainers were distinguished soldiers, sailors and commanders in the Revolutionary War, and Maine was the scene of several battles. The most notorious was the infamous bombardment and burning of Falmouth—now Portland—on Oct. 18, 1775. The British Navy launched a far-flung campaign to punish seaports aiding the rebel forces, and Portland fell into the dragnet.

The fierceness and merciless intensity of the assault was widely reported throughout all 13 colonies and helped inflame passions against Britain. It prompted the Second Continental Congress to pass legislation authorizing what John Adams wrote led to “the true origin of the American Navy.” Earlier, in the first naval battle of the Revolution, patriots in remote Machias swarmed and captured the British sloop HMS Margaretta in June 1775. The dead and wounded on both sides were carried to Burnham Tavern, where the plot to seize Margaretta was hatched. The tavern, a National Historic Site, still stands.

The worst American naval defeat until Pearl Harbor occurred near the mouth of the Penobscot River as vessels augmented by ground forces sought to oust the British from eastern Maine (“New Ireland,” as Britain had declared it). A 44-ship armada, reinforced by some 1,000 marines and a 100-man artillery contingent commanded by Lt. Col. Paul Revere, left Boston for Maine in late July 1779. The colonials were no match for the Royal Navy. Most American ships not blown out of the water either were scuttled or captured, then hauled upriver to Bangor and burned. The surviving colonials fled overland with few supplies or weaponry. The “Penobscot Expedition” is among the darkest episodes in U.S. military history.

Many Maine communities were occupied by British forces. It underscored the indifference and incapacity of Massachusetts toward defending the region. Maine took years to recover, and louder rumblings for statehood began. The crippling Embargo Act of 1807 made matters worse, since Maine’s economy relied heavily on seagoing commerce. Then, the War of 1812 put many Maine communities under British boot-heels yet again. Its easternmost city, Eastport, wouldn’t even be liberated until 1818, three years after the war ended. 

Two major (and other lesser) engagements occurred in Maine: the 1814 Battle of Hampden (near present-day Bangor), a humiliating U.S. defeat; and the electrifying clash between HMS Boxer and USS Enterprise on Sept. 5, 1813, just off Pemaquid Point near the mouth of the Kennebec River. The thunderous, furious, 30-minute slugfest, witnessed by scores of residents on shore and heard by many more, resulted in the capture of Boxer. It was a widely reported and celebrated boost for U.S. morale, memorialized by Portland native Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in his poem “My Lost Youth.” The remains of both ships’ slain commanders were ferried to Portland, then reverently buried side by side with full military honors.

The war convinced most Mainers that their area was a mere stepchild of Massachusetts and the state government was nonchalant about defending it. The earlier crippling attacks by the French and native tribes hadn’t been forgotten, either. Besides, travelling to distant Boston, the state capital, on official business was an arduous, time-consuming, risky and expensive venture. The push for statehood acquired new life.

Jeffrey Hollingsworth grew up in Belfast, Maine, and is a University of Maine alumnus. He is a past president of the Maine State Society of Washington, D.C., and principal founder of its charitable foundation. He is the author of Magnificent Mainers (Covered Bridge Press), a compendium of mini-biographies of 100 famous Maine natives. His articles have appeared in Honolulu and Down East magazines and in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Portland Press Herald, and other periodicals.

TRUMPING THE MILITARY WAY

[Published on http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/bureaucratic-reform-transition/2016/12/29/id/766014/  and https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trumping-military-way-scot-faulkner?trk=mp-reader-card ] #TRUMPING 

Revolutionary change is waging war on the status quo.  It is about victory in the initial assault and winning heart and minds to institutionalize the new order.

Throughout history, military geniuses have articulated the philosophy of victory.  Their proven approaches to winning resonate through the ages and beyond the battlefield.  They can guide Trump’s “commanders” as they take to the field.

Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” is the most timeless of guides for those battling in military, political, or business environments. 

Trump has already mastered one of Sun Tzu’s maxims: “As the voice cannot be heard in battle, drums and bells are used.  As troops cannot see each other clearly in battle, flags and banners are used.”  Through social media, and turns of phrase, Trump has sent out vivid signals of what is to come and what must be done.  As President, Trump will need to continue his messaging to keep his troops focused on the outcomes most important to Making America Great Again.  He is implementing the most ancient of rules in the most cutting edge ways.

Sun Tzu also explained, “Thus a victorious army wins its victories before seeking battle”.  Preparation is everything.  That is what Trump and his Transition are doing.  January 20, 2017 is a day for celebration, but also a day for action.  Trump can do what Reagan famously did – delay the post-swearing-in Congressional Luncheon to sign Executive Orders.  Given the volume of Executive Orders needed to end the Obama era and begin the Trump era, the most newsworthy ones could be signed in the Capitol, leaving others to be signed at the White House between the parade and the balls. 

General Ulysses S. Grant and Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter showed the world that the best way to achieve victory was overwhelming your opponent. On April 16, 1863, Porter’s naval fleet ran the gauntlet of Confederate guns along the Vicksburg bluff. Risking the entire Union Fleet on the Mississippi River in one bold act assured victory.  Confederate batteries could not fire fast enough to hit every vessel.  The speed and surprise of the flotilla rendered the enemy ineffective. 

President Trump must move swiftly and broadly to change Washington.  One reform or one piece of legislation at a time gives the forces of the status quo time to mount an effective opposition.  The so-called mainstream media can only report so many stories a day.  Democrats in Congress can only make so many speeches a day. Trump must strike fast and hard and overwhelm the Establishment. 

General Douglas McArthur, and Admirals Chester W. Nimitz and Bill “Bull” Halsey Jr., proved that you do not have to fight every enemy confronting you.  They won World War II in the Pacific by leap frogging Japanese strongholds, isolating them and letting them whither through lack of supplies. 

President Trump should be inspired by how America won the Pacific War.  The Executive Branch is vast.  Many have likened previous reform and budget cutting efforts to “attacking Antarctica with an ice pick”.  Trump and his team need to find key “islands” to assault and leave protected “sacred cows” or programs and personnel to wither.

On August 5, 1864, Rear Admiral David G. Farragut led the Union fleet in attacking and ultimately capturing the key Southern port of Mobile, Alabama.  The Confederates attempted to divert and disperse the Union fleet by launching small torpedo boats into his fleet.  Farragut famously ordered his commanders to “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!”  The timeless rule is to not let intermittent issues get in the way of your primary mission.

Trump’s Administration will confront bureaucratic “torpedoes” from the first day onwards.  The most effective way government agencies and programs survive change is to draw incoming political appointees into longstanding tactical squabbles over turf, resources, and ego. 

The career establishment prays that newly confirmed Presidential Appointees will plunge into tactical morasses.  Once pulled in, the original mission is lost.  Valuable political capital, and revolutionary zeal, vanishes before the new Administration realizes it. 

President-Elect Donald Trump values military prowess in his appointments.  These military best practices will also be valued as he changes Washington, DC.

WHY TRUMP WINS

Also published in http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/scott-faulkner-how-trump-wins/?page=all and http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/establishment-GOP/2016/05/26/id/730890/

 

A new voter coalition has emerged.  A new era has begun.

 

Outside the circles of power in Washington, DC, New York City, and Hollywood, America has been a smoldering caldera of anger.  Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, America has been without a real strategy or leader to cope with the complexities of the post-Cold War World.

 

Throughout America, those not favored by government regulations and contracts, remain in the deep depression that started in 2007 and swallowed our economy in September 2008.

 

The 2016 election cycle is all about Americans rebelling against those who lied to them, and are exploiting the system.  This is Donald Trump’s America.

 

2016 is about removing those who caused the problem and starting anew.  That is why policy details matter less than the willingness to topple the current Establishment.

 

Americans in 2016 are seeking a defining moment of rebellion.

 

On April 19, 1775, militiamen in Lexington, and Concord, stood their ground against British Regulars who were on their way to confiscate rebel arms and arrest their leaders. The American Revolution had begun.

 

No policy manifesto or legislation existed when those heroic individuals rose-up against a collective evil.  The “Minutemen” did not debate alternatives, they decisively acted to end the established order.  It was fight first, sort out later.

 

Trump is leading a “back to the future” rebellion, transcending party and ideology.  Just like 1775, it is fight first, sort out later.

 

There are three movements capable of bringing 1775 to 2016.  The Establishments of both parties have done everything they can to keep these movements apart, including demonizing each with the others.  The Establishment’s worst nightmare is that these movements will unite in a common purpose against them.

 

The moment these movements think like 1775 the Establishment is through.  Trump knows this. 

 

The Tea Party movement arose in 2007 to protest policies of Republican and later Democrat elites.  This movement railed against out of control government spending and attacked the cozy behind the scenes deals between government elites and friendly business leaders.  They decried the “crony capitalism” of Bush’s Wall Street bailout, which rewarded instead of punished those who wrecked the American economy. 

 

Occupy Wall Street began on September 17, 2011, with demonstrations in New York City.   The OWS demonstrators also decried “crony capitalism” and the Wall Street bailout.

 

In 2014, North American workers united in an Inter-Continental Day of Action to protest the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Many were veterans of the fight against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).  Approximately 564 organizations, spanning the political spectrum signed petitions and organized protests.

 

Those who rallied to Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in 1992, those who are rallying to Bernie Sanders in 2016, desire to end a system that benefits elites at the expense of everyone else.  Sanders remains in the race to bring his voice and his legions to the Democratic National Convention.  The platform fights and Sanders’ speech to the convention will be their high water mark.  Afterwards, they may support Trump in fighting the system.

 

Trump understands that America’s political parties are voter mobilization mechanisms, not ideological crusades.  He knows his history.

 

The Reagan Era was driven by Reagan and “Reaganism”, not by Republicanism.  The Republican “Establishment” never fully embraced “Reaganism”, to the point of undermining his Revolution.  Elected as “Reagan’s Third Term”, Bush and the Republican Establishment launched a thorough “cleansing” of Reaganites from the Executive Branch, as well as among state Republican Parties.  Grassroots Republicans realized their enemy was the moderate, elitist, Washington Republican Establishment. 

 

In 1994, Newt Gingrich’s rival of “Reaganism” powered Republicans to retake the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years.  Pettiness and ego among Congressional Republicans derailed the revival.  Scandals and earmark abuses drove them out of office in 2006. Grassroots Republicans erupted in open revolt with the Washington Establishment.

 

The Establishment still does not comprehend what is happening, or they hope they can dampen rebellion and keep control of the status quo. 

 

Trump is the only person left standing willing to smash their status quo.