862. First Principles by Thomas Ricks

 862.  First Principles by Thomas E. Ricks.  Mr. Ricks wrote this book because of his shock and dismay at the election of Mr. Trump in 2016.  Thus his initial push was to alienate one half of his potential readers.  So he asked the question- what is America supposed to be?  Then he equates Republicans with white supremacy.  He apparently looked for another way to make sure to alienate half of his potential reading audience, in case he failed the first time.  In his introduction and throughout the book, he is perplexed by the fact the early Americans lived with a paradox- that liberty is essential for a worthwhile life and yet allowed slavery to exist. 

He seems to be unaware that Virginia, for example, tried twice with the Crown in England to end slavery, but was prevented from doing so.  That Virginia had nearly one half million free blacks at the beginning of the Civil War.  That slavery was something initially accepted by every single colony.  I am convinced that it will be sometime before this country can have a reasoned discussion about slavery.  Not in my lifetime but perhaps someday.  But Ricks assessment of slavery was cursory at best and judged from the high ground of arrogance and self-righteous superiority.

He assesses the first four presidents in terms of virtue as presented and interpreted by these men.  But here is where his problems begin.  He has not read any Classical author in the original and he does not seem to have any extensive readings in any of them in translation.  When it comes to assessing Cicero, for example, he relies on Plutarch.  Plutarch wrote a great deal and much survives.  He also wrote a series now called Parallel Lives.  There is much in these of value to modern scholarship and the study of ancient history.  However, one must be careful with Plutarch because the life of a famous Greek is pared with that of a Roman.  Characteristics, personalities are often curved to fit his desire to create a parallel life set.  Thus he often selects those stories which reflect the view he wished to project.  For example, I could easily select stories, quotes and events from the life of Mr. Obama to depict someone shady and even immoral.  Or I could select only those events and words to make him look like a saint.  Neither approach would be fair or honest and certainly not very scholarly.  He quotes, cites Plutarch enough to indicate that this was his main author for antiquity.  

So with John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and others once a tone is set, those anecdotes by and large are selected which fit the image Mr. Ricks wanted to present.

When I began the book, after two chapters, I mentioned to my wife that I had the feeling that he spent much time on the internet hacking, chopping bits and pieces from the web.  And near the end of the book, Mr. Ricks does indeed mention how much time he spent in front of a computer.  Yet, he boasted that he spent many hours in dusty libraries doing research.  I do not think so.

He covers Thomas Jefferson’s long interest in Epicureanism.  Then launches onto numerous references to Epicurus’ devotion to the four cardinal virtues:  Truth, Justice, Courage and Temperance.  The problem is that he talks of these as though these were a creation by the Epicureans. The main problem here is that he clearly was not very well informed on the fine points of Epicureanism.  And Cicero’s devastating criticisms of Epicurus was merely brushed aside.   I doubt Mr. Ricks had any kind of serious grasp of the system. Had he done so he may have been able to figure out or at least guess why Jefferson had so little interest in poetry of any kind.  Epicureans were famous in antiquity for lack of any sophisticated appreciation for poetry or the fine arts, because these had nothing to do with the real atomic world.

He mentions that Mr. Witherspoon who became the President of Princeton brought a new and bold educational system from Scotland.  He did indeed and was without question an impressive man in every sense of the word.  But Mr. Ricks seems completely unaware that what Mr. Witherspoon introduced was a slightly modified version of the quadrivium (geometry, music, arithmetic and astronomy) and trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) which was so integral and the heart and soul of the Renaissance. It is indeed to the great credit of Mr. Witherspoon that he did so, but Mr. Ricks could have derived even more mileage out of the fact, if he had indeed spent hours, days, months and years in those dusty libraries.

Mr. Ricks assertion that Mr. Jefferson’s “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is due to Epicurean philosophy is presented as fact.  There is no way that this enjoys universal agreement.  Aristotle talks extensively of this in his Politics.  Happiness is a concept common in antiquity, it is not something that is the sole possession of Epicureanism.  Again, Mr. Ricks knowledge of antiquity is cursory and way, way too keyboard based.

In fact Cicero wrote De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (On the Ends of Good and Evil)) in which he presents Epicurus’ view of happiness, the Stoic view of happiness and the Peripatetic view of happiness.  Each view presented is followed by someone in the dialog pointing out flaws in argument or contradictions. Had he read this one work, he could have  expanded his understanding of the idea of happiness.

Here is another example of my criticism that Mr. Ricks did not actually spend hours and hours in ‘dusty libraries’.  He mentions that Mr. Jefferson constructed underground passage ways for his slaves to keep them out of sight as much as possible.  He apparently is unaware that Mr. Jefferson had a deep interest in Hadrian’s Villa, located near modern Tivoli.  This fascinating complex also has underground service areas which Hadrian had constructed.  These made it easier to access areas of the villa much more easily by slaves and workers and provided cool comfort for those working.  It may be that Mr. Jefferson did it at Monticello for the same reasons.  

Mr. Ricks seems to see the ancient views of virtue and dedication as somewhat naive.  Yet, Cicero and others clearly realized that “perfection falls not to the share of mortals” (quote from Mr. Washington). In fact Cicero in his De Legibus (On the Laws) specifically defends the value of the Tribunes with their power of veto.  He realized that such a veto or other mechanisms designed to bring government to a halt were of great value.  Why? To prevent hasty decisions based on emotions of the moment.  We call this grid lock.  It is built into the Constitution and wisely so.  Mr. Madison read Cicero with great care.

He assumes that the inclusion of slavery in our Constitution guaranteed a bloody war.  That is a conclusion simply accepting history as some done deal with unavoidable outcomes.  As one of Mr. Lincoln’s Secretaries remarked after the South’s defeat: surely we could have found another solution other than destroying half of the country.

Mr. Ricks mentions in several ways the compromises and flaws in our Constitution.  This, too, indicates lack of reading.  The formation of any government requires compromise, because each system must reflect the character and nature of the people making it.  That is the road to ‘perfection’ as envisioned by Mr. Madison.  He realized the need for making changes to the Constitution, thus the Amendment system.  But he also realized that people are not perfect, thus there are three branches which constantly watch any power encroachment by the other.  He wanted to safeguard our freedoms and this was the solution- one which works slowly, can easily be brought to a halt and creates tensions between each branch of government.  This is a reflection of the nature of people, BUT also the nature of Americans.

He also does not seem to know that Rome had only one republic.  It lasted longer than any in Greece by far and our Republic has many years to go to surpass the longevity of the Roman.

He mentions that Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, etc. ranted about each setting up a despotic system or damaging the Constitution or destroying the country.  Yet, he never seems to connect this with remarks made by Mr. Obama, Mr. Trump, Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, etc.  Politics is a rough activity in this country.  It always has been and hopefully will be.

His take on Adams is weak.  Yes, there are the Sedition Acts, the Alien Acts which now are easy targets for complaint.  But Mr. Adams was only the 2nd President in a system untried, new and very experimental.  Plus, Mr. Ricks seemed unaware that Mr. Jefferson hired a hit man in journalism to make ceaseless attacks on Mr. Adams, while he, Mr. Adams, was President.  Mr. Adams did not know about this until much later, but the pressure on President Adams was immense.  Yes, he could be sensitive, but so was Mr. Jefferson, et al. 

And Mr. Ricks never mentioned that one of Mr. Adams finest achievements was keeping us out of a war with England.  A war which we would have had difficulty winning.  My gripes here and elsewhere are an historian’s lack of appreciation for dilemmas faced by Presidents.

Toward the end he writes something weird when he mentions that Noah Webster wrote the first dictionary in order to control language.  It is left at that.  There is no supporting facts, no examples.  It was just plain weird.

He equates, near the end of his book, slavery with white supremacy as conceived in modern times.  Another statement without anything to back it up.  There is an additional problem with any discussion of white supremacy today- it is so broad in scope that any mention of the great achievements of Western Civilization carry the label.  Combine this with his introductory remarks, remarks at the conclusion and it is clear that Republics are white supremacists.  He never defines white supremacy.  Very odd for someone who spent so much time in those dusty libraries.

 

His work lacks a bibliography.  Serious omission for someone aspiring to be a scholar.

 

His work lacks an index making it impossible to reference topics.

His Epilogue has some points of value, but these are reduced in value by his obvious prejudices and biases.  Weird for someone who saw these so readily in others.

Mr. Ricks’s biases and prejudices created a haze which his lack of scholarly pursuit could not disperse. 

729. Stonewall Jackson The Black Man's Friend

729.  Stonewall Jackson The Black Man's Friend by Richard G. Williams, Jr. This has been an interesting book.  I am so glad that I have read this.  The book immerses the reader in the Christian concept that one has a duty to love others which transcends world reality.  

The bed where T. J. Jackson died

The author details the incredible cruelty associated with slavery and the unjust nature of it.  Slavery is condemned very forcefully.  However, since this is a review/summary of the book it is necessary to be brief. So we will use a quote from Thomas Jefferson:

We have the wolf (the evil of slavery) by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let go.  Justice is on one scale, and self preservation on the other.

Much of slave owners' capital was in slaves.  Letting go would mean economic disaster.  Reason and love of justice clearly say that slavery is wrong.  

This in a nut shell sums up the essential dilemma  which confronted slave owners.

The other aspect is that slavery was an American problem, not just a flaw in Southern character.  Virginia repeatedly attempted to outlaw slave importation before the Revolutionary War.  However, these laws were overturned by the British King.  Why?  Northern shipping and economy heavily relied on the slave trade.  In fact the first colony to legalize the slave trade was Massachusetts in 1641.  The first state to outlaw the slave trade was Virginia in 1778.

Given time, the slavery problem would have been handled without a war which was so destructive.  But that was not to be.  

The author does not intend this as a game to see who was wrong first or last.  It simply makes the point that slavery was wrong and both North and South had a hand in it. 

In fact not just North and South but simple logic and evidence indicate that leaders in Africa were eager to deal in the slave trade as they saw a profit in it.

The idea of the book is not to lay blame but simply to set out the complexity of the whole tragedy.

Much time is spent in detailing the deep religious feelings among slaves and freed blacks in the South before the war.  But who taught these people about religion?  Christianity was not the religion of their homeland.

Christianity required that all people have an opportunity to share in God's love.  So it began that slave owners felt an obligation to teach the Christian religion to slaves. The author seems intent on revealing the evil of slavery and the good which Christianity offered.    

So we have the stark contradiction that slavery is an evil, yet slave owners taught slaves a religion which tells the story of the Hebrew escape from slavery in Egypt.  These two opposites existed side by side.

Thomas J. Jackson enters the picture.  He was orphaned very young and raised by his Uncle Cummins Edward Jackson.  His uncle (who had no interest in religion) owned slaves and it appears that it was his slaves who introduced young Jackson to Christianity.

When  T.J. Jackson moved to Lexington, Virginia to teach at VMI, he joined a church.  He soon met people interested in teaching slaves about the Bible.  He took up the idea and began his own Bible classes for slaves.  He went about to the houses of slave owners and asked permission to teach their slaves about the Bible.  They agreed.  T. Jackson made it clear to the slaves, as he went about signing them up for class, that they were to agree to come every week on time and that they must do so of their own free will.  A large number signed up.

Mr. Jackson was not the only one to run a Sunday-school for slaves.

Class size grew.  It is clear from the evidence which survives that he taught his pupils how to read.  Two lawyers once challenged him in the street that he was breaking a Virginia law which forbade teaching slaves how to read.  T. Jackson would have none of it and persisted in his classes.  No lawsuit ever came up.

T. Jackson had a habit that whenever he met one of his students in the street he always greeted them.  He was known as a stickler but kind at heart and was greatly admired by his students.

When called to serve in the Confederate Army, T. Jackson made provisions for the upkeep of the school.  Once after the battle of First Manassas, people at the post office at Lexington, Virginia waited eagerly for news of the result.  A pastor friend of T. Jackson was handed a letter from the General.  His friend announced to all there that they would soon know the facts of the battle.  General Jackson's note read:

My Dear Pastor,

In my tent last night, after a fatiguing day's service, I remembered that I had failed to send you my contribution for our colored Sunday-school.  Enclosed you will find my check for that object….  

This and numerous other notes and incidents indicate that the school meant a great deal to Mr. Jackson. 

The many graduates of the school and descendants became ministers, doctors, educators and leaders.

Mr. Jackson accepted slavery but did not approve.  In this situation he felt, because of his Christian beliefs, that he owed these slaves and Blacks an opportunity to learn of the value in the Bible.

People owned slaves.  The religion of these owners believed that love of God should be denied to no one.  These people, kept in bondage, were given a religion which freed them of sin at the hands of those who sinned against humanity by enslaving people. 

Is this a contradiction?  Yep, on a major scale.  But as I read this book a quote from a Roman author I admire kept coming to me:

"Servus est." Sed fortasse liber animo.  "Servus est." Hoc illi nocebit?  Ostende quis non sit.  Alius libidini servit, alius avaritiae, alius ambitioni, omnes timori.  (Seneca.)

"He is a slave."  But perhaps he is free in the mind.  "But he is a slave."  Will this harm him?  Show me who is  not a slave.  One is a slave to lust, another is a slave to greed, another is a slave to ambition, all are a slave to fear.

I always shared this with my students each year.  I did not use it to support slavery but to try and get my students to see that slavery is not so simple and can work for and against the master. 

The author makes the point that Christianity helped to create a common bond between Black people and White people.  Many would disagree with this today but perhaps he has a point.

But it must mean something that Mr. Jackson who owned slaves felt obligated to teach slaves how to read because of his religious beliefs.  

When the statue for General Jackson was put up in the cemetery where he is now buried, the first contribution came from Lexington's Baptist Church for negroes.  This church was established  by a member of Mr. Jackson's Sunday-school.

The main thrust of the book seems to be that love of fellow man despite differences and contradictions of circumstances has been challenged in modern times by a love of hate for anything different.

672. TEN TEA PARTIES BY JOSEPH CUMMINS- summary

672.  TEN TEA PARTIES BY JOSEPH CUMMINS.  There were tea parties in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, Chesterton, York, Annapolis, Edenton and Willmington and Greenwich.  They were not called tea parties until much later.  In fact participants were not willing to discuss involvement because they feared legal action by the East India Company whose tea had been destroyed.  At that time tea party activity was known as "action against tea".  The reason for the tea parties was actually a company, East India Company which had poorly managed its business to the point where it needed subsidizing by Parliament.  And the reason Parliament was willing to float the company was because the company was thoroughly intertwined with those in government and government itself via taxes.  The EIC did account for something like 6 percent of the total income of England.  It had its own army, ships and means of enforcement.  So England granted a huge bailout.  And to recoup this loan they needed to add a tax which American colonists were expected to pay.  It, as we know, did not turn out so well.  But what is interesting is that the colonies ,spread out along the Atlantic coast with poor roads connecting them, quickly learned to communicate with each other and were competitive as regards resistance to the tax.  It is also interesting how well organized the colonists became and how closely their sentiments were the same concerning reason for opposing the tax.  One goes: 

Resolved, that no duty or taxes can constitutionally be opposed on us but by our own consent given personally or by our own representatives.

The sentiment was similar all along the coast.  Some parties were smooth and openly destroyed tea, others involved destruction of property and acts of violence and outright intimidation .

In the last chapter author gives an interesting account of how the tea party concept has been interpreted through the ages not just here in the USA but also in Europe and Asia.  He brings it up to the present with a brief discussion of the new Tea Party movement here in the United States.  Interestingly complaints, grumbling, accusations and criticism of the present Tea Party reflects characteristics of those of 200 plus hundred years ago.

655. His Excellency by Joseph Ellis- summary

655.  His Excellency by Joseph Ellis. There are two major approaches to people of unique capacity.  Great people, whether Scipio Africanus or Cicero or George Washington, so utterly surpass the capacity of even talented people and appear to have done the impossible to ordinary people are often elevated to a divine or semi-divine status.  This obscures the true greatness of these people for they, just like any one, had to deal with personal demons, ambitions and weaknesses inherent to any human.  Or the other approach is that of some modern historians-  judge a great person from a self-righteous superior sense of morality and behold greatness as nothing but a charade, a farce.  Ellis has done something clever.  He exposes the warts and faults only to show that George Washington managed to subsume his demons and ambitions for the general good.  His courage in battle was impressive.  He was fearless.  He had a temper which exploded on occasion.  He held strong views about a strong central government, yet always worked within the confines of what the times would allow.  He reluctantly accepted command of the continental army.  He graciously relinquished command at the end of the war.  He went into retirement just like Cincinnatus of the Roman Republic.  When the Articles of Confederation proved their own inadequacy to administer the needs of a new country he was convinced to come out of retirement and chair the Constitutional Convention.  When finished again he went home and was again coaxed out of retirement to become its first president and with deep reluctance accepted a second term.  During the revolution he wrestled with the country's and his own slavery dilemma and contradiction.  Until President Truman integrated the army he was the only commander in our history who had former slaves fighting along side whites.  This experience gave him first hand knowledge that blacks had the same ability as whites.  But he was not willing to tackle the slave problem if it meant the impossibility of forming a nation.  So he was willing to live with the contradiction for a higher cause.  In his will he freed his slaves.  He was ambitious.  He was driven.  He wanted a lasting reputation of service and commitment.  His end was/is moving and inspiring- he developed a painful and deadly infection in his epiglottis (which he acquired because he insisted on his customary inspection via horse in a driving rain) endured painful medical treatment until he told his doctors that enough was enough- felt his own pulse and said "'tis well".

653. Passionate Sage by Joseph Ellis.- summary

653.  Passionate Sage by Joseph Ellis.  I learned a great deal from this book.  I found it well written and stimulating.  Ellis makes the case that Mr. Adams deserves more respect and credit for his part in the formation of the country, his contributions to political philosophy and contributions to his perspective of what is the essence of history. 

His admiration of Mr. Adams is infectious.  This book makes clear how much, how long and how deeply Mr. Adams contemplated the purpose and meaning of the revolution and numerous other topics.  His running commentary in the books he read, his marginalia, reveal not only a fascinating person but someone who has/had much to offer. 

But as I read this book I came to realize that Joseph Ellis sees little or no place which Latin Classics, particularly Cicero, had/have in the mental make up of Mr. Adams.  This is a blessing because I began, because of what Mr. Ellis left out, to think of Cicero, his contrast and similarity to Mr. Adams and the value to be derived there from.

John Adams felt that political leaders needed to remain disinterested in their own political future and maintain purity of public virtue.  I wonder if Mr. Adams derived this from Cicero's De Officiis wherein Cicero makes the case that someone who pursues truth and embraces reason will never submit to someone merely because that person has power.  Virtue to Adams was not an abstract concept but a system of self denial.  Isn't this Stoic? 

The study and practice of law I am sure does not dissolve the obligation of morality or religion.  The statement is complex and potentially self contradictory.  So are Cicero's.  Yet, sometimes I think that Cicero understood humanity better than those who spend so much time attacking Cicero's value as a thinker.

Mr. Adams felt that those who take a role in controversial issues themselves become controversial.  This brings up a number of questions concerning Cicero and the Catilinarian Conspiracy and the history surrounding the Philippics.

Adams felt that American independence was a constructive and voluntary choice of self government.  It was more than simply a repudiation of British tyranny.  To Mr. Adams history was and is a messy activity which makes nailing down truth as hard as nailing jelly to a tree.

Mr. Adams asserted that his part in our independence was more important than the Declaration of Independence.  That document he claimed was the culmination of ideas hammered out in debate and argument in the meetings of the Continental Congress.  In those debates Mr. Adams played more than a major part as supportered by a comment of T. Jefferson.

Ellis makes the point that Franklin brought out the Franklin in  Mr. Adams- that is, Franklin's homespun style caused Mr. Adams to drop his usual manner and imitate Franklin.  Maybe but it is also possible that Mr. Adams was practicing Ciceronian prosopopoeia.  Much as Cicero took on the character of Clodius or Appius Claudius Caecus for humorous purposes.  Mr. Adams may have been doing the same with Mr. Franklin. 

Adams was concerned about the degree of adulation given to Mr. Washington.  He had this to say- 

it is to offend against eternal justice to give to one as the people do the merits of so many.

Adams once reflected that the greatest men have the greatest faults. 

This he said of Hancock- if he had vanity and caprice so had I.  I could not but think of the old saw repeated about Cicero's conceit.  This too needs to be re-examined.

Adams insisted that very talented people often possess some very serious flaws.  It is the founding group together, fighting, arguing that brought about the USA.  Perfection was never possible because the participants were not perfect.  Mr. Adams understood this and that is why he saw a need for complexity in government.

Mr. Adams' view of history means that to grasp history one must look to the inherent characteristics of human behavior which were allowed to flourish here so long and unfettered by British rule.

Divine providence did not make us a chosen people.

The fundamental elemental urge of humans is to strive for distinction- that is part of the human fabric- this produces a fluctuating elusive aristocracy which will do good as long as those who run government realize that government must channel this energy to do good for society as awhile.  To figure that government's job is to eliminate social distinctions runs counter to the reality of human nature.  Cicero's discussion in De Oratore of emotions and the part these plain in decision making come to mind here.

The shear size of the USA meant that unless these human urges are controlled and directed this lust for distinction would cause severe damage to any effort to bring benefit to the population at large.

Comprehensive theories of politics were invariably too neat and rational to capture the maddening messiness of the real world.  Interesting because Cicero is often faulted for not being consistent.  I have always found this interesting on two levels.  Perhaps Cicero saw that human mental make up is messy and also weird to think that Cicero over a 40 year period was never to change his views.

Ideal neat political theories were too divorced from knowledge of history to arrive at something functional and lasting.

The above several quotes caused me to wonder what aspects of De Officiis or any of his philosophical works are contradictory and what benefit does Cicero gain from this?

History is a book of paradoxes.  What a loaded assessment.

The above wit and wisdom of Mr. Adams and the reflections it caused me concerning Cicero:

Ellis' assails Mr. Adams lack of stoic pose in a number of places.  He seems determined to disconnect him from Cicero.  Yet, when standing beside Abigail's death bed he was the only one who maintained composure.  This is stoicism.  Whence?

Ellis records that Adams mused on punctuation while reading Cicero's De Senectute that he was roaming through the Milky Way.  Ellis suggests that Adams was drifting away from the value of Cicero.  Clearly Ellis has not read De Senectute (often called Cato the Elder) in Latin for Adams more likely than not was reading something like this:

To me (says Cato the Elder to his friends) the ripeness of old age is so pleasant that the closer I approach death I seem to see land and at some time soon into a harbor from a long voyage to have come.

Or this:

But the end of living is best when with mind and faculties in tact the same nature which put life together sets a human free.

The pattern of words Cicero chooses reveals the sense that life and body are tightly messed with one another.  An interesting comment on Cicero's part on the mystery of life.

A clear and neat reading of Cicero's De Senectute would have produced a more just and accurate rendering of Mr. Adams' comment.

Ellis has great sensitivity for Mr. Adams but misses an important dimension of his intellectual background.  Mr. Adams had read Cicero in one or multiple forms for 70 years straight.  Something drew Mr. Adams to Cicero.

648. Nothing Like it in the World by Ambrose- summary

648.  Nothing Like it in the World by Ambrose. Ambrose is a professional historian who writes in a simple style yet covers complex and intricate material.  His main contention is that the Transcontinental railroad would not have happened without government granting the land to the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific AND a capitalistic system which used competition to achieve success.   He also suggests that the rail line would never have happened without the Civil War.  The idea of the transcontinental railroad was urged and promoted for years before construction began.  Yet, the southern states wanted a southern route with the implication of the extension of slavery;  the North wanted a northern route without the possibility of the extension of slavery.  With the coming of war, Lincoln who had been interested in the idea for years, signed the bill into law in 1862.  Ambrose points outs the corruption, mistakes and inefficiency of construction. (However, the rail line was built faster and more efficiently than any other railroad every built anywhere by any country.)  Yet, he seems to admire and cause the reader to admire how the government incentives promoted competition and confusion at the same time AND to admire how people with diverse reasons for building the railroad provided a service to our/their country to this very day.  It is interesting too the number of key people, who built the railroads which met in Utah, realized that the railroad was essential for economic power, national security and our place as a world power.

647. First Family- Abigail and John Adams by Ellis- summary

647.  First Family- Abigail and John Adams by Ellis.  The long overdue rehabilitation of John Adams continues with this book by Professor Ellis.  It is interesting that as John Adams' skills and value increase, it comes at least in a small way at the expense of Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson, the shy, quiet thinker, gentle man is slowly being laid to rest.  The book is written from the point of view of Abigail and John.  Consequently Ellis rarely diverts from their personal letters and the point of view these offer.  She was clearly a close advisor whose ideas and views John constantly sought.  She was very knowledgeable of current events and philosophical ideas.  She was the balance he needed for his life and ambition.  They were a team in many ways.  John Adams was tireless in his efforts to help establish a new country.  He saw the way events were going better than almost anyone else.  There is in the book a discussion of the exchange which took place between Abigail and Jefferson years later in which Abigail took Jefferson to task for underhanded political attacks against her husband.  Jefferson attempted to smooth it over and cut himself free from dubious activities but Abigail would have none of it.  This scene goes to the heart of Abigail's love for John, her knowledge of events and her ability to argue head to head with a pretty smart fellow.  My criticisms of the book are two:  Ellis' lapse on occasion to Barbara Walters' mentality when he contemplates their sexual activity  and his suggestion that John Adams was obsessed with his place in history.  I do not deny that he was ambitious.  But Ellis by focusing on this aspect misses other reasons for actions by John Adams; such as his proven ability to see the future, know its source and outcome.  He knew himself to be a better man than most to make key decisions.

646. 1776 by D. McCullough- summary

646.  1776 by D. McCullough.  Another wonderful book by an author who has so much  feeling for the human condition.  Yet, this does not prevent him from seeing the flaws which people have.  Truth to tell he seems to understand that our flaws not only make us human but in the case of some people may be used to catapult them to great success.  For the most part the book revolves around the personality and abilities of George Washington.  McCullough suggests that this year, 1776, was the most difficult year in our entire existence.  Against overwhelming odds its leader and army, which in the beginning and at different times virtually no army at all, managed to out fight and to out wit a superior force.  The book begins with the siege of the British army at Boston.  Washington has just assumed command.  He has never commanded an army, he has never led troops into battle.  Yet, there he was, almost  the last good hope of our early years.  He did well at Boston but soon in  his defense of New York, made one mistake after the next.  He almost lost his whole army there.  One ability which helped Washington no end was his ability to identify talent.  So he saw talent in several people, most of which had also never commanded troops or lead them into battle.  Nathanael Greene and Henry Knox are two of these.  They turned out to be excellent generals who were loyal to Washington without reserve.  It is interesting that even though one may know the story, McCullough has the story unfold in such a way that one can not but help to cheer on Washington, Green and Knox.  After the near disaster at New York and the retreat which nearly turned into another disaster, Washington gets across the Delaware River to safety.  Then Washington conceives a bold plan- to cross the Delaware in the middle of winter and attack the Hessians employed by the British.  That was a success.  He retreats back across the river and then boldly on succeeding days crosses the river again and attacks British troops.  It was what Washington needed to gain the confidence of his fellow citizens and officers.  It was what his officers and soldiers needed in order to believe in themselves.  Even though his success was maybe small in scale, it was just the lift which was needed. Personal courage and determination held shreds of an army together. 

644. A Country of Vast Designs by Robert Merry- summary

644.  A Country of Vast Designs by Robert Merry.  James K. Polk was the first dark horse president.   He was tireless.  He preferred to micromanage his administration.  He did not like personal confrontation.  He saw and believed that national security required that the boundaries of the United States stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  He was heavily criticized then and now for the Mexican War.  Yet, few can argue that the land added by Polk put the United States in a position to become a world power and protect and develop those areas now Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas.  Through careful negotiations with Britain, and bluster, we acquired the Oregon territories.  He walked the line between possible war with England and acquisition of that area through peaceful means.  While walking the tightrope with England, he tried to negotiate with Mexico and purchase those areas in the south west.  The difficulty arose with a government in Mexico which was so corrupt that it was difficult to know with whom to negotiate.  When war came, Polk had to fight it with General Scott who was a member of the Whig party opposed to the war and General Taylor who all the while had his own eyes on the White House.  Cries of foul, disregard of life, duplicity were heaped upon Polk without relent.  All this compounded by Senators who thought their genius ignored and unappreciated at one time or another stood by the president at another waited to see his administration collapse, the North which sought ways to outmaneuver Southern interests and Southern politicians who opposed any move which suggested opposition to the rights of slave states.  Polk did it all- found funding for the war, acquired Texas and the rest of the southwest and the Oregon Territories, negotiated an independent banking system which served the country well for the next several generations.  All in four years.  He was exhausted after one term which was all he ever said that he wanted.  He died four months after leaving office. I must mention that his wife, Sarah, was as supportive and clever and gracious as Abigail Adams.  Sarah offered much of value to James.

629. Going Rogue by Sarah Palin- summary

629.  Going Rogue.  I just finished Sarah Palin’s book.  I enjoyed it very much.  From accusations of censorship in libraries, putting corrupt politicians in jail, opening up natural gas reserves to defending her decision to resign as governor this book opened up an awareness of issues I did not know existed.  I did not know that wild life associations use photoshop images of deer backed by waterfalls and mountains and fields whenever they gear up to oppose drilling for oil in Alaska.  I very much remember seeing these.  This is interesting considering that there are no deer or mountains or rivers or human inhabitants where the drilling would take place.  I did not know that only 2,000 acres would have drilling done out of the millions of acres at ANWAR. 

I did not know that as a governor of Alaska she would be forced to pay their own legal fees when complaints were filed for misuse of state funds for using a state owned plane to travel to an event across state where she attended a ceremony at which she let her daughter cut the ribbon.  The Press conveniently forgot that fact that she had sold on Ebay the expensive private jet purchased by the previous governor.   I did not know that every single legal action against her was/has been dropped or dismissed.  (For any one reading this and questioning my willingness to accept what Sarah Palin says- why are you willing to accept what some reporter says when the report was based on meager hearsay?)  Example- when she announced her decision to resign as Governor, the press printed stories about how she did so because she was about to be hit with an indictment by the FBI.  Story fizzled when the director for the FBI in that area said that it was absolutely not the case.  Seems to me the press should have called the director first.  The press knew the value of making the claim rather than finding the truth and dumping the story in the first place. 

I now know the origin of the title for the book.  The reason may surprise you. Read the book and find out why.

I also learned that the Katie Couric interviews contained much more interview time than what was shown and produced for TV and that these deleted parts would have given a much fairer impression of Sarah than that which was released.  For example that part of the interview in which Katie and Sarah discussed the need to wean us off of petroleum as much as possible were deleted and only that portion was kept where she pushed for drilling. And by the way Sarah takes responsibility for the blunders in both interviews. 

The real reason she asked Joe Biden if she could call him Joe at the VP debate is also an interesting story.

I also learned a great deal about how professional PR people have come to package candidates and as a consequence suppress the character of the candidate and at the same time ignore issues which should be discussed.  Example- Sarah was not permitted to press Biden/Obama about Obama’s associates several of which have turned out to have some odd views or even have been terrorists. Maybe it is no big deal but the electorate did have a right to know and decide.  She felt that the McCain/Palin campaign did a disservice to the American people by not bringing those issues to the attention of the voters.  Instead the press pursued Troopergate which also was dismissed as bogus. Nor was she permitted to address on the national stage that fact that Obama listened to some rather nasty sermons for twenty years.  Instead the focus was on matters such as whether Trig was her son.  Her dad had the best answer when a reporter questioned whether Trig was her son-”yes, you dumbass, I was there when he popped.”  Not elegant but at least true.

I enjoyed the book.  I learned a great deal about the way elections are managed and conducted.  I also learned how the press has changed through the years and the reason that news blogs and other news sources are growing in popularity.  It just may be that the media I grew up with will fade as new sources of information become available.  It will be interesting as always.

599. John Adams. David McCullough.- summary

599. John Adams. David McCullough.  I can not express the enjoyment I derived from this book.  Scholarly without being pedantic which is rare.  A narrative style which brings John Adams, Abigail, family members, even Thomas Jefferson to life.  I felt at times that I was sharing their life while nestled in an arm chair in a corner of the room. 
The marriage of Abigail and John is most endearing.  They were both strong willed, forceful and each in their own way ambitious.  But every ounce of their being was dedicated and devoted to our incipient nation.  Each seemed complete when the other was present.  Failing that they wrote letters, hundreds, to each other.  These are full of their love and admiration to each other, humor, and brilliant assessments of other major players in our early history.
John Adams began as a teacher.  He soon decided to become a lawyer.  He had though a deep and abiding love of farming and gave that serious thought too.  His description of teaching is stuffed with humor, insight and a willingness to chuckle at himself. Here is the portion quoted in the biography:
“I sometimes in my sprightly moments, consider myself, in my great chair at school, as some dictator at the head of a commonwealth.  In this little state I can discover all the great geniuses, all the surprising actions and revolutions of the great world in miniature.  I have several renowned generals but three feet high, and several deep-projecting politicians in petticoats.  I have others catching and dissecting flies, accumulating remarkable pebbles, cockleshells, etc., with as ardent curiosity as any virtuoso in the Royal Society....At one table sits Mr. Insipid, foppling  and fluttering, spinning his whirligig, or playing with his fingers as gaily and wittily as any Frenchified coxcomb brandishes his cane and rattles his snuff box.  At another sits the polemical divine, plodding and wrangling in his mind about Adam’s fall in which we sinned, all as his primer has it.”
In the theater of politics he had considerable skill.  Not so much with party politics which he found repulsive but in negotiations and argument.  John Adams possessed the patience to see through long term, very long term goals. This is evidenced in the manner in which he approached the sequence needed to declare independence.  Not only his own efforts were carefully geared to the task but he even watched events unfold, such as the highly favorable reaction give the publication of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.  He knew that the drive for independence would need to take advantage of that book.  Another example would be the care with which he arranged for the first loan the United States would receive.  That loan came from the Netherlands.  Their government system which was slow by design concerning such things required a man of John Adams’ drive, force and patience.  Interestingly he initiated the loan on his own when diplomacy in France had the slows.  His private assessments are insightful combined with humorous.  Here we see his views on Congress (the one which eventually produced the Declaration of Independence):
“This assembly is like no other that ever existed.  Every man in it is a great man- an orator, a critic, a statesman, and therefore every man upon every question must show his oratory, his criticism and his political abilities.
The consequence of this is that business is drawn and spun out to immeasurable length.  I believe if it was moved and seconded tat we should come to a resolution that three and two makes five, we should be entertained with logic and rhetoric, law, history, politics and mathematics concerning the subject for two whole days, and then we should pass the resolution unanimously in the affirmative.”

As Vice-President, he supported President Washington in all matters.  Privately in letters to Abigail, there were aspects of his position he found insignificant at best.  But publicly he was a model of decorum.  He had to learn what he should do as Vice-President.  Of course he had no model to follow, no rules had been established.  There were moments in the Senate when he became tedious.  For he found it difficult to sit and manage Senate meetings instead of diving in and feasting on arguments at hand. 
When President he knew that following Washington would bring its own set of difficulties.  He kept the Cabinet which Washington had formed and asked to stay on when his term ended.  Washington perhaps did this to provide continuity for the 2nd president but in the long term it was a major mistake.  Cabinet members were more than disloyal to Mr. Adams, indeed many actively worked to sour Adams’ efforts.  Also the Cabinet members were not stellar.  At this time the runner up became Vice-President.  Thus his VP was Thomas Jefferson who worked hard to thwart Adams’ effectiveness as President.  Jefferson publicly despised party politics but was very good at using it effectively against Mr. Adams.  By the end of his term he and Jefferson had more or less broke off what there was of their former close friendship.
When his lost the election for his second term, it seemed that he was relieved in a way.  He went home and there took up farming with great joy, reading his books, writing to a myriad of friends and living life fully.
The friendship of Adams/Jefferson was reforged by Benjamin Rush, a long time friend of both men.  He set the scene and then managed to get Mr. Adams to make the first move.  A move which puts Rush near the top of those to whom we owe so much about the ideas and thoughts of these two great men.  Large numbers of letters traveled back and forth.  Mr. Adams wrote far more letters. 
He and Abigail weathered the deep sadness of the death of a son, a daughter and other family members.  These were compounded by the manner in which they died.  Yet, through it all, Abigail was there and the two together like Baucis and Philemon cared for their common love and devotion.  In a letter John once wrote “Griefs upon griefs! Disappointments upon disappoints. What then?  This is a gay, merry world notwithstanding.”
I can not praise this book enough.  Read it and anyone will come to love and admire these two and others.  Read it and learn about our political system and its great strengths and the nature of politics.  (This work gives a needed grip on how our political system works.  These individuals breathed a rarefied air and ran on high octane fuel.) It is uplifting from beginning to end.  It is my prayer that someday, someone do for Marcus Tullius Cicero what David McCullough has done for John Adams.

574. Saboteurs- The Nazi Raid on America by M. Dobbs- Summary

574.  Saboteurs- The Nazi Raid on America by M. Dobbs.

April 16, 1942 Admiral Canaris, Nazi chief of Military intelligence and Col. Von Lahousen, covert operator met with Hitler to begin Operation Pastorius: a bold plan to blow up key industries in the United States to cripple US war effort.  Barely 6 months had passed since the USA had entered the war.  Von Lahousen was skilled at such activity.  He had dressed German soldiers as Polish soldiers to justify the invasion of Poland.  He smuggled IRA to Ireland to fight the Brits there to sap their strength. 

Hitler feared the industrial might of the USA.  In other matters Hitler considered Americans pampered.  Hitler hated American democracy, despised Roosevelt and USA’s free market system. 

There was a degree of hesitation.  Germany tried sabotage in the USA during W.W.I.  It backfired.  The explosion on Black Tom Island only served to stiffen American resolve.  Walter Kappe was selected to put the saboteur group together.  He had lived for 12 years in the USA.  He was the US Propaganda Chief of the German- America Bund, i.e. the American Nazi Party;  promoted hate against Jews and encouraged support of the New Germany.  He left America and now lived in Germany.  He possessed extensive knowledge of American ways. 

Walter Kappe was so active in the Nazi party here in the US that US Military Intelligence opened a file on him.  When he needed money to open a Nazi newspaper in the US Joseph Goebbels sent him $50,000.00.  He was abrasive toward his own party members and was more or less forced to leave the US.  

In 1941 a German agent in the US informed against the Nazi spy system here in the US.  So part of the reason for Pastorius was to restore the damage.

His plan was to use U-Boats to land saboteurs on American soil.  At this time U-Boats were sinking American ships faster than the rate at which these were being built.  His plan was to drop saboteurs somewhere near New York City and near Miami, Florida.  U-Boats liked the waters near Miami because the city at this time refused to blackout for fear of losing tourists.  Thus US ships served a fine silhouette against the night sky. City lights made ships an easier target.

Eleven German- Americans volunteered for training.  The training took place from April 11 to 30 th.  They were trained on a small farm in Prussia.  The group consisted of George Dasch who was the leader of group one, Ernst Burger who had served in the Michigan National Guard and had become an American citizen, Edward Kerling, leader of group two, Herbie Haupt, a naturalized US citizen, who spoke better English than he did German, Joseph Schmidt who once lived in the US, Richard Quirin, Heinrich Heinck, Herman Neubauer, Werner Thiel, Ernst Zuber and a man named Scottie.  Zuber and Scottie were dismissed.  Schmidt ended up not going due to health problems.

They were shown how to make incendiary devices from items available from a drug store, how to make timing devices using dried peas; how to blow up rails.  During breaks they read US newspapers, drilled in new identities.  Kappe came on Fridays to drill.  Names were changed as little as possible to avoid making mistakes.  Information would be relayed from one city to the next by placing certain adds in the paper.  They were taught how to write secret messages without chemicals.

The targets selected were aluminum/magnesium plants in the east.  Alcoa in Tennessee.  The reason for this was that these produced aluminum for manufacturing airplanes.  The idea was simple.  Destroy the electrical flow needed for the process.  Then all molten metals would solidify and potentially disable the plant permanently.  This was assigned to:  Dasch, Burger, Schmidt and Quirin Heinck.  If time permitted, they were to plant bombs in Jewish department stores to spread panic.  Group two consisted of Kerling, Haupt, Thief and Neubauer.  Additional targets were the Hellgate Bridge, Horseshoe Curve of the PRR and 2 cryolite plants in PA which produced aluminum oxide needed to produce aluminum.  These plants were labeled P-3, meaning that these had minor importance for defense.  (Obvious concerns blurred any sense of what was probable.)

Later US Intelligence revealed that aluminum production in the US would have ceased if these two plants had been destroyed.

From May 1 to May 21 the Saboteurs said their farewells to family and friends.  Some had US wives, most had lives which had turned out far from what they had planned.  Today we would call most of their families dysfunctional. 

Cincinnati was the gathering point for the saboteurs.  There was a reason for this.  Many Germans lived here.  It was a strong base for Nazi groups here in the USA.  There were also contacts here- e.g. Father Krepper who was a pro-Nazi living in New Jersey.  They also had contacts in Chicago and New York.  They anticipated help from former Nazi party members here in the USA.

Lax rules made it easy for these people to live in the US. 

The odds against US at this time were steep.  Japanese controlled 92 % of rubber production in the world.  German controlled Europe seemed impregnable.

Six months after Pearl Harbor, any attack on American soil in the East seemed at best remote.  Low priority for security was the rule in the eastern US.  Federal agencies fought, argued and bickered.  Roosevelt recommended beefing up patrols but he was ignored and ineffective in bringing change.  All this in spite of the fact that an intelligence report indicated that Germany was sending Saboteurs via Switzerland.

When Long Island group landed on beach, a young lad, John Cullen came upon the group. The conversation was strange, they even threatened John’s life and then offered him money to keep quiet.  John backed away and when opportunity came ran back to his post.  He told what he saw and heard.  He was ignored until he showed them the money.  Then he and other guardsmen ran back to the spot and found no one around.  But they could smell the fumes of what was most likely the U-Boat’s diesel engine.

In fact the U-Boat had landed the saboteurs a mere 200 yards off shore.  The message of the encounter was given little heed because reports of U-boats came in regularly.  Harold Hess, a geology professor, created a system to find U-Boat positions.  He was given little credence- he was the only employee at his office in New York.  Commander-in-Chief of the Navy considered his efforts worthless.  By tracking radio signals, observers suggested that a U-Boat was near Amaganasett at 8:51 P.M.  But this info was not sent to Hess ‘til 11:30 P.M.  By that time Hess had gone home.  An operation officer said that a coast guard cutter would investigate.  It never did.  In spite of all this, U-Boats reports did reach Washington.  People near this beach saw the U-Boat but no one believed them.  The Chief Radioman of the Naval Radio Station tracked U-Boats.  He called Coast Guard about this U-Boat for backup.  Brushed off he called army post.  Ignored here also. 

The cases and german cigarettes were found where Cullen talked with the saboteurs.  In these boxes were explosives.

Dasch bought four tickets to Jamaica in Queens.  They all boarded the train.

When the four arrived in New York at this time, the following events had transpired:

Japan had landed on the Aleutian Islands
The Battle of Midway
The Russians had been pressed back by German army
British were in retreat in North Africa
In the last three months the allies had lost 4 million tons of shipping via U-Boats.
America, particularly the President, was concerned.

The Coast Guard decided to inform FBI.  The CG was not too happy- the FBI was not known to work well with other agencies.  But for fairness, none of the agencies worked well with each other.  Each agency guarded very jealously what they considered their turf.  In the beginning the FBI did not believe Cullen.  But he stuck to his story.  Hoover was eager to show that the FBI was more than just an agency which went after communists.  The FBI notified the White House about the saboteurs.

Both Burger and Dasch possessed the kind of upbringing which allowed them to feel that they were putting effort toward a better world.  They and some others possessed a sense of mission which made them potentially dangerous.  Dasch also was inconsistent and one might say even unstable emotionally.

The 4 saboteurs did not trust each other.  It is even unclear whether or not Dasch and Burger had enough commitment to carry out their assignments.

Dasch who was neither reliable nor consistent soon contacted the FBI himself and said that he wished to speak directly with Hoover, director of the FBI.   He was labeled a crackpot.  The note was filed.  The message was not passed on.  In all fairness he must have sounded like someone with some loose bolts and missing nuts.  Some think that he may have had a split personality.  But undeterred he went to Washington.  Visited army intelligence.  The man was out.  Dasch left a message.

The other saboteurs landed in Florida near Jacksonville with the same ease.  There was mutual mistrust in this group too.  These too had their own equipment.

Finally Dasch gets his interview.  It lasted for 6 days.  When Hoover found out that Dasch had been ignored he was furious. Part of the reason was that he was fearful that Dasch would visit another agency and that agency would get credit for the bust.  Of course Dasch had done just that.  But as luck would have it, contact was not made.  The information he gave them, allowed the search for the saboteurs to begin.

The saboteurs in Florida made their way to Cincinnati and Chicago.  Cincinnati and Chicago, were  ideal for saboteurs because there were a strong German communities in each.  The American version of the Nazi party was strong there too. One of the saboteurs went to visit his parents.  He was not supposed to but he did so anyway.

Burger  was followed and this lead to Quirin and Heinck.  All were arrested.  Now the FBI goes after Florida group. On this group Dasch also gave important information. Kerling and Thiel went to New York; Haupt and Neubaurer met in Chicago.  Kerling’s life was complicated:  he had a wife and a mistress.

In fact the family background of these people was not very solid.  Haupt had a friend, Wernecke, who had dreams of being a Nazi storm trooper here in the US after Nazi victory over the USA. 

Haupt  and the rest of the saboteurs were arrested.

Dasch was a major problem for the FBI.  He had given all of this information but was so unstable that it was not a sure thing that he would amount to much of a witness.  Plus Hoover may have worried that his public testimony once the papers talked to him would deprive FBI of the limelight.  Hoover was genuinely worried about US security but also about image of the FBI.  The Coast Guard patrols were untrained, unarmed, and too  few.  Newspaper interviews with Dasch would make that abundantly clear.

Hoover made dramatic announcement of the arrests.  FBI was given full credit.

At this point Attorney General Francis Biddle informed President Roosevelt.  The President wrote a memorandum in which he compared these saboteurs to Nathan Hale and Major Andre.  He wanted the two US citizens, Burger and Haupt tried for high treason via court-martial.  He wanted the other 6 who were in German uniform first and then later disguised as US citizens court marshaled and hung as the first two. He also noted that he would not hand over the saboteurs to any US Marshal, even though armed with writ of habeas corpus.  Quit a bold statement for a liberal president of the US.

Most officials read abut the arrests in the newspaper.  This generated a round of carping.  The bickering became so intense that FDR became exasperated.  I think that such insights give better understanding that the president is not all knowing or able to do as he wishes.  They are hampered for good and ill by a bureaucratic system some of which is as old as the hills.

Biddle was a liberal known for his strong views about civil liberty.  He had also been criticized for being too soft during the conflict which loomed over US.  He was determined to change his image.  In fact there is a funny little story which reveals something about Biddle and FDR.  The President knowing about Biddle’s commitment to civil liberties, summoned Biddle to a Cabinet meeting.  FDR informed the other members of the cabinet of his intentions.  Biddle comes in and FDR announces that he has decided all freedom of speech must be suspended for the duration of the war.  He asks Biddle to draw up the necessary proclamation.  At this point Biddle launched a forceful speech about the value of liberty.  The President and his cabinet broke into laughter.  The kind of burden FDR carried needed release.  Else the man surely would have lost his mind.  Lincoln knew his good jokes too- for the same reason.

Biddle and FDR wanted the case tried in Military Tribunal.  Conviction in a civilian court would be very difficult.  Let me explain.  If I buy a gun and I intend to use it to kill someone, I can not be convicted unless I actually use the gun.  The US District Court would perhaps fine me and maybe put me in jail for 2 years.  But if arrested as an enemy soldier I would be tried in a military court under military law; I could be charged with violation of the rules of war.  This carried a death penalty.

Biddle wanted to prosecute.  This was very unusual but Biddle feared that the lawyers for defense would invoke habeas corpus.  This would throw case to Supreme Court and Biddle knew that the lawyer for the army had never appeared before the Supreme Court.  Biddle even went a step further than the President's memorandum- Biddle wanted to use a Military Commission.  This court was not subject to Articles of War.  A Commission was ad hoc.  Thus the President could draw up his own rules for procedure. In a Military Tribunal the death penalty required a unanimous decision.  A Commission required only a 2/3 vote. 

FDR set up a Military Commission.  Any evidence was ok that would have “probative value to a reasonable man.”  He issued a proclamation denying access to civilian court.

During the Civil War, Lincoln had Milligan (who lived in the north, not near enemy lines) arrested.  Lincoln wanted him tried before a Military Tribunal.  The case after Lincoln’s death reached the Supreme Court.  The decision rendered stated that a civilian could not be tried before a Military Tribunal when civilian courts were “open and properly functioning.”  This case became known as Ex parte Milligan.  Biddle was worried that this would be employed by the defense.

The prisoners were transferred to Washington, D.C.

When Hitler found out about the arrests he was livid.  It was a propaganda blow.  July 4th, two days before the start of this trial, the war was in Hitler’s favor.

Kenneth Royal was ordered by the President to defend the saboteurs.  He had a dilemma.  The code listed in Courts-Martial states that the defense counsel must guard the interests of the accused “by all honorable and legitimate means known to law.”  In Royal’s opinion this meant that he should try to get trial transferred to Civil Court.  However, the President’s proclamation forbade this.  Royal sent a message to FDR asking permission to challenge the Presidents own missive.

FDR had three choices:

1.  reject the request and risk accusation that the trial was unfair.
2.  He could appeal to Supreme Court.
3.  Say nothing.

FDR made no reply.  Royal sent another note- he wished to challenge the President’s order for Military Commission.

The Tribunal was held in Justice Department.  Security was high.  Press was barred entrance.  Hoover was so worried about leaks that he forbade FBI agents to discuss the matters of the case in public.  He feared that their lips might be read.  The government faced a major problem.  If press was allowed in, the Germans may learn that the Atlantic coast was virtually unprotected.  Yet the government realized the right of people to know.  The government had set up Office of War Information to help deal with this.  One representative of the OWI was allowed in the room.  This did not fly.  It was decided that the Commission would send reports via OWI.  This did not go well with the press.  Biddle felt that censorship was overdone.  There were numerous spies in the US at the time.  They probably knew what was going on.  Finally 12 reporters were permitted to see tribunal room, and the saboteurs.  Reporters were surprised to see that the saboteurs were not husky, nor did they look savage.  The mind of reporters never cease to stun me.

Thousands lined the streets.  As the saboteurs were driven through the streets they were surprised to hear so much hatred from Americans. 

The room in which the Tribunal sat was large; the windows  were covered.  There were three Major Generals, 3 Brigadier Generals on a raised platform.

The government slogged through archives to find precedent for a Military Commission, instead of Court-Martial which was more common:

Jackson used Military Commissions during War of 1812.
Military Commissions were used by North and South during the Civil War.
An 1865 Tribunal convicted Mary Surratt of conspiring with Booth to assassinate Lincoln.  She was sentenced to death.  It fell into disuse until after Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. 

The President of the court was General McCoy.  Royall challenged this court as invalid.  Biddle replied that saboteurs were in same category as armed forces.  Thus they had no civil rights.  McCoy said that objection was denied.  McCoy did not have a legal background, but he did have a sterling record.

The violations were read:

Violation of the Law of War- enemies of the US were acting for the German Reich and they were caught in civilian clothes and they violated section 81 which outlawed activity which impaired weapons of the US army and 82 which defined spies.  The last charge was criminal conspiracy. 

All saboteurs pleaded not guilty.  Royall said that they had not spied.  In one sense this is true.  And in civil court spies caught who had not yet spied would be difficult to convict.

The government’s first witness was John Cullen.

The squabbles which the President had to deal with were serious and disconcerting.  He even joked that he was going to spend the day blowing up people.

The saboteurs had confessed to the FBI.  However, they pleaded innocent.  Remember that the reasonable man was standard for evidence.  It took three days just to read Dasch’s statement.  The FBI showed and explained how the explosive devices were to work and how messages would be exchanged.  Biddle rested his case:  We are not bound by hearsay rule.  It is difficult to believe that a body of reasonable men would reject confessions that bore the obvious marks of truthfulness.”

Arguments were launched by both sides in the press- those who took the side of the saboteurs and those who wished their speedy death.  I did not know this but we were in love with opinion polls even at this time.  A poll noted that  51% of Americans mistrusted Germans, 26 % Japanese and 1% Italian Americans.  

Numerous people had been rounded up before the trial and questioned: Americans Nazi party members, Haupts parents.  These broke down, they were so overwhelmed.  FDR was not worried about Royall.  He had already decided to refuse to obey the civil courts as Lincoln had done.  He was worried about subversive activity and punishment.  While trial was in progress, FDR wondered whether saboteurs should be shot or hung.  He hoped that the vote of the Tribunal would be unanimous.

As each saboteur took the stand, each had an excuse:  just following orders, would not carry out orders, enjoyed buying cars, cloths (there was much rationing in Germany at this time).  Kerling was unrepentant.  Dach and Burger went last.  Burger’s story was sad.  He had been tortured by Nazis.  His wife was harassed.  Forced while in concentration camp to write farewell letter to wife.  He may indeed have wanted out of Germany and becoming a saboteur may have been his ticket out.

Lambdin P. Milligan was a northerner who sympathized with the south.  These were labeled Copperheads.  In 1862 Lincoln issued a proclamation which established Military Tribunals.  This in essence suspended habeas corpus which obliged government for example to hand over suspected criminals to civilian courts.  Lincoln opted to use unconstitutional methods to save the constitution.  The debate has raged since that time.  Political enemies accused Lincoln of acting like a tyrant.  Milligan was defended by James Garfield.  It was decided by the Supreme Court that the government had violated the constitution by imposing martial law far from the actual battle lines.  Garfield won.  But many considered ex parte Milligan too sweeping, particularly when one considers modern methods of war.  As modern weapons were developed this had in effect expanded the location of the battle lines.  In the Civcil War there were no airplanes for example.  After the airplane it was possible to fly over neutral territory or peaceful territory and later at some point drop a bomb.  But Royall wanted to take advantage of ex parte Milligan.  But if he went throughout lower courts of appeals by that time the saboteurs would be dead.

Royall notified Tribunal of his desire to appeal.  Denied.  But Biddle convinced President to accept the challenge.  He worried that they would be accused of flaunting the constitution.  Biddle and Royall go to Justice Roberts.  Supreme Court returns to session.  News of this stunned the press.  The judicial branch would be pitted against the executive.  A district judge quickly rejected the plea.  This sent the matter to the supreme court.  Now the drama is set for ex parte Quirin.  Quirin was one of the saboteurs.  Supreme Court session was flooded with applications for entrance.  Only those directly involved in the case were admitted. The saboteurs were not present.  Only eight justices were present.  One was on his way.  The Chief Justice received notice that President Roosevelt intended to execute the saboteurs regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision.  The court was divided.  I would like to know when it has not been divided on touchy issues. Franfurter believed that the west was fighting for survival.  He moved to disqualify one justice because he had received a military commission.

The moment Royall opened his mouth Frankfurter asked why habeas corpus went from district court to SC skipping the usual appeals court.  Royal replied that urgency was the reason.  Royall claimed that a Military Commission was unconstitutional.    Government he said failed to show why they should be tried by Military Commission.  Articles of war allowed two reasons for Tribunal:

1. espionage
2. assisting enemy in area of conflict.

Justice Jackson:  Do they constitute an invasion force?

Royall- no

1.  Several defendants claimed to join saboteurs to escape Germany

2.  Long Island and Florida were not combat zones.

Justice Byrnes:  Your contention is that if the Fuhrer and 7 generals should land by submarine on the banks of the Potomac, having discarded their uniforms, they are entitled to every right you have discussed in the application of a writ of habeas corpus?

Royall- yes.  Under ex parte milligan unless an enemy soldier was in the combat area, he is entitled to some rights because he was a person in America.

Frankfurter:  Does the enemies’ presence determine “that theater of operations” via acts of aggression?

Royally -Yes. The saboteurs came with explosives but they did not engage in any form of combat. They were unarmed.

Frankfurter- I am glad to know what is meant by unarmed

Royall- If the president has the right to Tribunal/Commission, he did not follow the manual for Courts-Martial which provide for review by Judge Advocate General.  President's proclamation bypassed this provision.

Frankfurter; Court-martial manual does not apply to enemy agents.  (It appears that Frankfurter did not believe in limiting presidents powers in time of conflict.

Biddle- US and 3rd Reich are at war.  Case turns on this.  This is a total war.  Can not compare Atlantic coast of today with Milligan in Indiana in 1864.  A modern war’s front is everywhere.  Articles of War must be interpreted in light of modern war.

Royall- Then this definition is too general.  Military tribunals could be established anywhere.  What about a worker on strike? 

Justices ask Biddle where he would draw the line.

(Can formulae be drawn up as a paradigm for all situations?  Would this not risk flexibility and maneuverability on the part of government to protect itself?)
Black- If US citizen  was apprehended who had left US and then returned with saboteurs, would he be in a military tribunal?

Biddle- That is the exact case of Haupt.

Black-If a man disrupts work at a defense plant, instructed to do so by foreign power, would he be in Courts-Martial?

Biddle- This one is on the edge.

Jackson-  Where is the line?

Biddle-  (here he hedged)  I am not sure- but I am sure of this:
military tribunal must include saboteurs who invaded our coast.  These people evaded patrols, removed uniforms, arrived secretly.
\
Reed- Absence of uniform makes a difference?

Biddle- All the difference in the world.

Biddle- Ex parte milligan is bad law.  It restricts the president from defending the counrty. It is ridiculous to suggest that President can not drive back or apprehend invaders.  Milligan was of a state which did not secede from Union.  But saboteurs were enemy invaders.  There must be room here for exception.

Royall- Saboteurs had not blown up anything, did not return to get explosives, were not committed to combat.

Black- What about planes carrying bombs?  They drop bombs far removed form area of combat.

Royall- Fighter planes are nearer combat.

Black- So is a submarine.

Royall- All these subs did was transport saboteurs.

There was nine hours of debate over two days. Royall paraphrased Justice Davis from ex parte Milligan: the constitution is not made for peace alone, it is made for war as well as peace.  It is not merely for fair weather.  The real tests of its power and authority, the real tests of its strength to protect the minority arises only when it has to be construed in times of stress.

Military Commission reconvenes:   Judge Advocate General makes Closing arguments.  This was the first in 77 years.  All accused claimed innocence.  All admitted doing what prosecution said.  They claimed to be refugees.  They were trained saboteurs.  They passed through naval operations in time of war.  They landed in darkness.  If beaches had been better protected they could and would have been shot. He recommended the death sentence.  The Commission goes into recess.

Now we return to Supreme Court.

In the conference room the Justices agree
1. not to do anything to interfere with war effort
2.  not to undermine President
3.  not to overturn Milligan.

Chief Justice Stone wanted to insert insistence of President complying with Articles of War.  There were several objections and this was dropped.  The Justices rendered their decision:

Prisoner was held in lawful custody.

Royall alleged that the saboteurs were looking for a way out of Germany.  This would make them look more like refugees than combatants.  But Cramer, the Judge Advocate General, flatted his assertions.  Cramer tongue- in- cheek suggested that the indictment should read:  in that Burger and all the rest of the defendants with intent to defraud the German government, did in Germany, in or about the middle of May, 1942, unlawfully pretended that they, well knowing the said pretense were false, and by means thereof, were saboteurs, and by means thereof did fraudulently obtain from said German government the sum of 180,000 dollars in money, four or eight boxes full of explosives, and a free trip across the Atlantic in a submarine.

Cramer argues that the best deterrent to future saboteurs was the death sentence.

Royall tried two more attempts.  He asked for independent review.  The Nazis did not execute English gentlemen caught in similar activity.  He was attacked in the papers.  He was praised by Frankfurter.  But he was also praised by the saboteurs.  They felt that they had received a fair trial.  Burger and Dasch included.

Military judges sentenced 6 saboteurs to death, mercy for Dasch and Burger.

Saboteurs wrote letters and made themselves ready for the end.  Germany tried to save them. They said that they had landed on US soil by accident.  Asked that they be treated as prisoners of war.  Threatened to use captured Americans as bargaining chips.  The US was ready with a reply.  Saboteurs were unlawful belligerents and they were caught behind enemy lines in civilian clothes.  These exchanges took place after they were executed.

FDR did not want their place of burial known.  Buried in unknown plots in an unknown place.  This was done to prevent Nazis here in the US from having a place of pilgrimage.  All of their clothes were incinerated.  No death reports were filed.  They were placed in plain boxes.  No photos were taken. No information was sent to the press.

Burger served as prosecution witness against treason trials in Chicago.  All were given the death sentence.  All of these were commuted to prison terms.  Trials in New York.  All were convicted and given prison sentences.

When Chief Jurist Stone wrote up the opinion of the Court, he decided that this case did not concern or pertain to Milligan for he was not a member of an enemy army.  He did not want to give Dasch and Burger grounds for appeal so he left out that it was necessary for President to mandate a review as ordered by Articles of War.  That one of the saboteurs was a US citizen was irrelevant.  So Stone supported the President’s right to hold a Military Commission but also upheld the right of Saboteurs to appeal to civilian courts.  But this part is not clearly spelled out.  Three months after execution, ex parte Quirin was issued.

After war was over the opinion fell under different light.  Legal scholars on both sides have made very good arguments.

Chief Justice Rehnquist in 1999 noted that both Lincoln and FDR put a higher value on prosecution of the war than obeying the constitution.  I am not sure that either President would have seen it the way I just wrote it.  Rehnquist said:

“To lawyers and judges this may seem a thoroughly undesirable state of affairs, but in the greater scheme of things it may be best for all concerned.”

Some wonder now if Biddle felt that the saboteurs were illegal combatants.  If this is so why did we bother to go to trial?  In England during the war saboteurs were arrested, tried sentenced in secret- the press was informed after the event.  (I suggest that England’s proximity to the war made them see matters more clearly or maybe more urgently than here far from enemy bombs.)

In 1944 two more Nazi saboteur groups were caught.  Military Commissions were used.  All were sentenced to death.  All were commuted to prison sentences.  There was no fanfare.  It had become more acceptable.  It was no longer political hay for FDR’s opponents.

Part of the failure of the mission lies in Nazi bureaucracy.  The earlier someone was a member of the party the more grace they received.  Kappe was an early Nazi member.  But he was the wrong man to pick saboteurs.  The most obvious flaw was lack of ideological commitment and cohesion of these saboteurs.  The Nazi saboteurs were as well trained as the hijackers of September 11.  But they did lack the ideological commitment of those who committed the acts of September 11.  Kerling for example could have accomplished his goals.  Not a single one of his relatives turned him in.