Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Rufus King, Massachusetts

Rufus KingKing was born at Scarboro (Scarborough), MA (present Maine), in 1755. He was the eldest son of a prosperous farmer-merchant. At age 12, after receiving an elementary education at local schools, he matriculated at Dummer Academy in South Byfield, MA, and in 1777 graduated from Harvard. He served briefly as a general’s aide during the War for Independence. Choosing a legal career, he read for the law at Newburyport, MA, and entered practice there in 1780.

King’s knowledge, bearing, and oratorical gifts soon launched him on a political career. From 1783 to 1785 he was a member of the Massachusetts legislature, after which that body sent him to the Continental Congress (1784-86). There, he gained a reputation as a brilliant speaker and an early opponent of slavery. Toward the end of his tour, in 1786, he married Mary Alsop, daughter of a rich New York City merchant. He performed his final duties for Massachusetts by representing her at the Constitutional Convention and by serving in the commonwealth’s ratifying convention.

At age 32, King was not only one of the most youthful of the delegates at Philadelphia, but was also one of the most important. He numbered among the most capable orators. Furthermore, he attended every session. Although he came to the convention unconvinced that major changes should be made in the Articles of Confederation, his views underwent a startling transformation during the debates. With Madison, he became a leading figure in the nationalist caucus. He served with distinction on the Committee on Postponed Matters and the Committee of Style. He also took notes on the proceedings, which have been valuable to historians.

About 1788 King abandoned his law practice, moved from the Bay State to Gotham, and entered the New York political forum. He was elected to the legislature (1789-90), and in the former year was picked as one of the state’s first U.S. senators. As political divisions grew in the new government, King expressed ardent sympathies for the Federalists. In Congress, he supported Hamilton’s fiscal program and stood among the leading proponents of the unpopular Jay’s Treaty (1794).

Meantime, in 1791, King had become one of the directors of the First Bank of the United States. Reelected to the U.S. Senate in 1795, he served only a year before he was appointed as Minister to Great Britain (1796-1803).

King’s years in this post were difficult ones in Anglo-American relations. The wars of the French Revolution endangered U.S. commerce in the maritime clashes between the French and the British. The latter in particular violated American rights on the high seas, especially by the impressment of sailors. Although King was unable to bring about a change in this policy, he smoothed relations between the two nations.

In 1803 King sailed back to the United States and to a career in politics. In 1804 and 1808 fellow-signer Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and he were the Federalist candidates for President and Vice President, respectively, but were decisively defeated. Otherwise, King largely contented himself with agricultural pursuits at King Manor, a Long Island estate he had purchased in 1805. During the War of 1812, he was again elected to the U.S. Senate (1813-25) and ranked as a leading critic of the war. Only after the British attacked Washington in 1814 did he come to believe that the United States was fighting a defensive action and to lend his support to the war effort.

In 1816 the Federalists chose King as their candidate for the presidency, but James Monroe beat him handily. Still in the Senate, that same year King led the opposition to the establishment of the Second Bank of the United States. Four years later, believing that the issue of slavery could not be compromised but must be settled once and for all by the immediate establishment of a system of compensated emancipation and colonization, he denounced the Missouri Compromise.

In 1825, suffering from ill health, King retired from the Senate. President John Quincy Adams, however, persuaded him to accept another assignment as Minister to Great Britain. He arrived in England that same year, but soon fell ill and was forced to return home the following year. Within a year, at the age of 72, in 1827, he died. Surviving him were several offspring, some of whom also gained distinction. He was laid to rest near King Manor in the cemetery of Grace Episcopal Church, Jamaica, Long Island, NY.

So what’s the big deal about a homosexual proclaiming to high school students what is wrong about the reaction of others to his views?

The National High School Journalism Conference invited the advice columnist to speak to fledgling Fourth Estaters in Seattle. Savage told the teenagers about how enticing his husband looked in a speedo. He cursed. He claimed that Republicans want to stone brides who aren’t virgins. And he likened the Bible to animal excrement.

Just another example of what is wrong with liberals. So what happened?

When dozens of teenagers reached their fill of abuse, they didn’t rush the podium, shout down the speaker, or burn his books (all experiences I’ve endured with student audiences). They quietly left the auditorium.

Why is it that politely removing one’s self from a disgusting display of what is wrong with the left is found to be so distasteful by that same leftist mentality? When high school students chose to remove themselves from a disgusting display from one of the left’s perverse activists the liberal ‘celebrity’ took it personal.

“It’s funny, as someone who’s been on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-assed some people react when you push back,” And to that all this blogger can say is isn’t it amazing how far some will go to justify their choices?

From a group who once claimed their bizarre lifestyles were due to circumstances beyond their control to redefining them as natural when the initial stand was deemed indefensible they have no credibility as anything other than a political special interest. That standing is as lame as their initial argument. it is nothing more than an attempt to justify disgusting lifestyles.

Dan Savage or whatever his/her name is provides the perfect example. A disgusting defense for a disgusting lifestyle. At least the closet queens of the past had the class to keep their dirty laundry secret. There is some dignity in keeping a disgusting attribute quiet.

If you find that ‘issue position’ to be distasteful and do not find that lifestyle to be distasteful you may want to re-examine your mindset. You should applaud the willingness of young people to listen to a whackjob explain his/her perverse proclivities. That they found the explanation to be reason to withdraw from the discussion should not be viewed as intolerant but wise.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

With this installment of this post series a little Wisconsin history is added. This particular post features Nathanial Gorham. There is a street in Madison, Wisconsin named for this Constitutional delegate. The city of Madison, Wisconsin is named for James Madison, the Father of the United States Constitution. Streets in Madison, Wisconsin are named for all 38 signers of the Constitution. All this happened in the 1830′s. In the 1920′s Wisconsin became known as the birthplace of the ‘progressive movement’. What the hell happened to Wisconsin in a short 100 years or less? That’s for another discussion when Governor Scott Walker is victorious in the coming recall election in June 2012; based on the hope of real Americans.

Nathaniel Gorham, Massachusetts

Gorham, an eldest child, was born in 1738 at Charlestown, MA, into an old Bay Colony family of modest means. His father operated a packet boat. The youth’s education was minimal. When he was about 15 years of age, he was apprenticed to a New London, CT, merchant. He quit in 1759, returned to his hometown and established a business which quickly succeeded. In 1763 he wed Rebecca Call, who was to bear nine children.

Gorham began his political career as a public notary but soon won election to the colonial legislature (1771-75). During the Revolution, he unswervingly backed the Whigs. He was a delegate to the provincial congress (1774-75), member of the Massachusetts Board of War (1778-81), delegate to the constitutional convention (1779-80), and representative in both the upper (1780) and lower (1781-87) houses of the legislature, including speaker of the latter in 1781, 1782, and 1785. In the last year, though he apparently lacked formal legal training, he began a judicial career as judge of the Middlesex County court of common pleas (1785-96). During this same period, he sat on the Governor’s Council (1788-89).

During the war, British troops had ravaged much of Gorham’s property, though by privateering and speculation he managed to recoup most of his fortune. Despite these pressing business concerns and his state political and judicial activities, he also served the nation. He was a member of the Continental Congress (1782-83 and 1785-87), and held the office of president from June 1786 until January 1787.

The next year, at age 49, Gorham attended the Constitutional Convention. A moderate nationalist, he attended all the sessions and played an influential role.. He spoke often, acted as chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and sat on the Committee of Detail. As a delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, he stood behind the Constitution.

Some unhappy years followed. Gorham did not serve in the new government he had helped to create. In 1788 he and Oliver Phelps of Windsor, CT, and possibly others, contracted to purchase from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 6 million acres of unimproved land in western New York. The price was $1 million in devalued Massachusetts scrip. Gorham and Phelps quickly succeeded in clearing Indian title to 2,600,000 acres in the eastern section of the grant and sold much of it to settlers. Problems soon arose, however. Massachusetts scrip rose dramatically in value, enormously swelling the purchase price of the vast tract. By 1790 the two men were unable to meet their payments. The result was a financial crisis that led to Gorham’s insolvency–and a fall from the heights of Boston society and political esteem.

Gorham died in 1796 at the age of 58 and is buried at the Phipps Street Cemetery in Charlestown, MA.

This post is about nukes, Ronald Reagan and a way forward. ‘Forward’ has recently been described as a leftist idea. I’m not so sure.

This new Reagan Doctrine was conveyed time and again in the weeks surrounding Geneva. In a major speech on Star Wars before Christmas, Caspar Weinberger stated emphatically that Star Wars will not be traded away. He also gave several reasons why the American left and the Soviets should welcome a gradual build-up of defenses and a gradual build-down of offenses as a step toward disarmament. Asked about Weinberger’s speech, Reagan reiterated that he does not intend to trade Star Wars away. Pressed by reporters to explain if this would eliminate any “linkage” at Geneva, Reagan publicly announced his instruction to Shultz that he should inform the Russians we will not trade away Star Wars to get an agreement on offensive arms. Rather, he said, we will talk about limiting or eliminating almost any offensive system, but only under an umbrella of defensive protection. Shultz effectively did this in refusing Gromyko’s demand that the U.S. freeze its Star Wars program while talks on offensive weapons continue.

President Obama’s ‘off-mic’ reassurance to the ‘soviets’ that he would be more ‘flexible’ after his re-election is disturbing to say the least. Why would any American President reassure the Russians he would be more likely to accommodate them after a term-limiting election? One can only assume the President is up to no good.

This single event alone has this blogger thinking our President is at the very least a treasonist politician. How could anyone make that ‘promise’ to a foreign entity without being labeled as such?

Reagan is the man who dismantled the Soviet Union as we knew it. Trust but verify was a reasonable course. It’s bad now but I’ll make it better after my re-election is nothing that inspires confidence when an American President is speaking to the leaders of another nation.

Supporting those who overthrew Mubarek in Egypt even though most saw it as a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood is evidence President Obama is either incompetent or a willing accomplice in this political disaster. Stepping in it with regard to Libya was equally disturbing even though little was made about it in the liberal MSM in America. Couple all that with the off-mic incident and Mr Obama’s stated intent to ‘fundamentally transform America’ and one must be more than concerned.

Barack Obama’s assault on American business through his bureaucratic regulators as well as his resistance to increase domestic energy production has extended the economic recession in our country. Nothing to date suggests Barack Obama has anything but the destruction of America in his political playbook. To think otherwise is extremely naive.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(The Founding Fathers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention are featured in this series of posts starting with number 98. Not every entry after 98 is about the delegates.)

John Francis Mercer, Maryland

John Francis Mercer, born on May 17, 1759, was the fifth of nine children born to John and Ann Mercer of Stafford County, VA. He attended the College of William and Mary, and in early 1776 he joined the 3d Virginia Regiment. Mercer became Gen. Charles Lee’s aide-decamp in 1778, but after General Lee’s court-martial in October 1779, Mercer resigned his commission. He spent the next year studying law at the College of William and Mary and then rejoined the army, where he served briefly under Lafayette.

In 1782 Mercer was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. That December he became one of Virginia’s representatives to the Continental Congress. He later returned to the House of Delegates in 1785 and 1786.

Mercer married Sophia Sprigg in 1785 and soon after moved to Anne Arundel County, MD. He attended the Constitutional Convention as part of Maryland’s delegation when he was only 28 years old, the second youngest delegate in Philadelphia. Mercer was strongly opposed to centralization, and both spoke and voted against the Constitution. He and fellow Marylander Luther Martin left the proceedings before they ended.

After the convention, Mercer continued in public service. He allied himself with the Republicans and served in the Maryland House of Delegates in 1778-89, 1791-92, 1800-1801, and 1803-6. Between 1791 and 1794 he also sat in the U.S. House of Representatives for Maryland and was chosen governor of the state for two terms, 1801-3. During Thomas Jefferson’s term as President, Mercer broke with the Republicans and joined the Federalist camp.

Illness plagued him during his last years. In 1821 Mercer traveled to Philadelphia to seek medical attention, and he died there on August 30. His remains lay temporarily in a vault in St. Peter’s Church in Philadelphia and were reinterred on his estate, “Cedar Park” in Maryland.

Some have said that President Obama blames everyone else for his failures. While I do not claim the President is personally responsible for the price of gasoline at the pump, his administration’s policies on energy exacerbate the situation.

For the President to suggest ‘speculators’ are responsible for the price of gas defies economic logic.

Confusion about the role and impact of speculation has been common and recurring throughout history. Take, for example, the accusation that speculators artificially increase the price of the commodity in question.

The impact of buying pushes prices up, the impact of selling pushes prices down. There is absolutely no reason to assume that speculators permanently increase the price of anything.

Could it be any simpler than that? Many choose to ignore the fact that while supply and demand are discounted as serious regulators of price, nothing is more effective in setting the price for an investment than how many people want it and are willing to pay a particular price to acquire it.

For how many decades have Americans allowed foreign entities to determine the price of oil, and therefore, the price of gasoline? If we had the refining capacity and the domestic production of fossil fuels to equal our consumption there would be no excessive price at the pump. Whether by government fiat or reluctance of oil companies to exploit local resources America is prisoner to its own choices with regard to fossil fuels.

Oil interests complain that the government restricts their exploitation of oil. The government expresses their concern that oil interests are complicit in a scam to ripoff consumers. The point is they are both lying. Government restricts the exploitation of fossil fuel resources and oil companies therefore withhold their interest in developing those resources.

We do not have refining capacity to match our consumption. Government restricts our exploitation of domestic resources. Together there is only one conclusion to move forward. Either government is willingly supppressing development of oil reserves or oil companies are manipulating the market to make a larger profit n imported oil or both.

What is needed is for both entities to come clean. Like that is likely to happen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(The Founding Fathers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention are featured in this series of posts starting with number 98. Not every entry after 98 is about the delegates.)

Luther Martin, Maryland

Like many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Luther Martin attended the College of New Jersey (later Princeton), from which he graduated with honors in 1766. Though born in Brunswick, NJ., in 1748, Martin moved to Maryland after receiving his degree and taught there for 3 years. He then began to study the law and was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1771.

Martin was an early advocate of American independence from Great Britain. In the fall of 1774 he served on the patriot committee of Somerset County, and in December he attended a convention of the Province of Maryland in Annapolis, which had been called to consider the recommendations of the Continental Congress. Maryland appointed Luther Martin its attorney general in early 1778. In this capacity, Martin vigorously prosecuted Loyalists, whose numbers were strong in many areas. Tensions had even led to insurrection and open warfare in some counties. While still attorney general, Martin joined the Baltimore Light Dragoons. In July 1781 his unit joined Lafayette’s forces near Fredericksburg, VA., but Martin was recalled by the governor to prosecute a treason trial.

Martin married Maria Cresap on Christmas Day 1783. Of their five children, three daughters lived to adulthood. His postwar law practice grew to become one of the largest and most successful in the country. In 1785 Martin was elected to the Continental Congress, but this appointment was purely honorary. His numerous public and private duties prevented him from traveling to Philadelphia.

At the Constitutional Convention Martin opposed the idea of a strong central government. When he arrived on June 9, 1787, he expressed suspicion of the secrecy rule imposed on the proceedings. He consistently sided with the small states and voted against the Virginia Plan. On June 27 Martin spoke for more than 3 hours in opposition to the Virginia Plan’s proposal for proportionate representation in both houses of the legislature. Martin served on the committee formed to seek a compromise on representation, where he supported the case for equal numbers of delegates in at least one house. Before the convention closed, he and another Maryland delegate, John Francis Mercer, walked out.

In an address to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1787 and in numerous newspaper articles, Martin attacked the proposed new form of government and continued to fight ratification of the Constitution through 1788. He lamented the ascension of the national government over the states and condemned what he saw as unequal representation in Congress. Martin opposed including slaves in determining representation and believed that the absence of a jury in the Supreme Court gravely endangered freedom. At the convention, Martin complained, the aggrandizement of particular states and individuals often had been pursued more avidly than the welfare of the country. The assumption of the term “federal” by those who favored a national government also irritated Martin. Around 1791, however, Martin turned to the Federalist party because of his animosity toward Thomas Jefferson.

The first years of the 1800s saw Martin as defense counsel in two controversial national cases. In the first Martin won an acquittal for his close friend, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, in his impeachment trial in 1805. Two years later Martin was one of Aaron Burr’s defense lawyers when Burr stood trial for treason in 1807.

After a record 28 consecutive years as state attorney general, Luther Martin resigned in December 1805. In 1813 Martin became chief judge of the court of oyer and terminer for the City and County of Baltimore. He was reappointed attorney general of Maryland in 1818, and in 1819 he argued Maryland’s position in the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland. The plaintiff, represented by Daniel Webster, William Pinckney, and William Wirt, won the decision, which determined that states could not tax federal institutions.

Martin’s fortunes declined dramatically in his last years. Heavy drinking, illness, and poverty all took their toll. Paralysis, which had struck in 1819, forced him to retire as Maryland’s attorney general in 1822. In 1826, at the age of 78, Luther Martin died in Aaron Burr’s home in New York City and was buried in an unmarked grave in St. John’s churchyard.

Nothing like pulling the curtain back on those who claim to be on the side of ordinary Americans. That liberal myth is once again uncovered and this time by none other than Thomas Sowell.

Labor unions, like the United Nations, are all too often judged by what they are envisioned as being — not by what they actually are or what they actually do.

That mask has been coming off, more and more, especially during the Obama administration, and what is revealed underneath is very ugly, very cynical and very dangerous.

Sowell’s column chronicles the liberal agenda’s abuse of executive power in the Obama Administration to extend the perversion of New Deal politics that dominated government for decades. Labor Unions, as a political arm of the Democratic Party, have become the thug power of what may have initially been a noble effort.

Unfortunately, as Sowell points out, too many ordinary citizens are still fooled by the rhetoric of liberals that their political party and organized labor are on their side. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simple fact that unions need to compel membership by employees to raise the dues that fund Democrat warchests demonstrates the fallacy of organized labor. It has not been about fair treatment of workers for decades.

I speak about this from personal experience. My first experience with organized labor was in my youth. As a fledgling entrepreneur organized labor placed an obstacle to my business pursuits claiming I had to join a union. My partners and I reluctantly decided to comply to avoid loss of income. After being told what the cost would be we learned the price of compliance was arbitrarily increased when we came to pay the bill. We declined.

Actually, a second experience was encountered when I was young. After taking a job with a large corporation my forced membership in a union was once again required. I later learned that my entry level position was a dead end and when I sought assistance from the union I was flatly ignored. I promptly left the company in search of greener pastures.

That was in my twenties. Years later while still in my twenties I was involved with a company with many abusive policies toward employees. It was a low paying job and most of the employees were young and vulnerable to the pressure applied. Being young and idealistic I now decided to test the union label for what it was supposed to represent; fairness for workers.

This time I was part and parcel to an effort to install a union at this company. At least six times this was tried before but failed. This time, with the help of one other brave or crazy partner, we were successful. Our efforts among other things resulted in the general manager losing his job. That was not our intent but that is what happened. If we didn’t know the target was on our backs before that we certainly did after that event.

I had been fired by that company before the union thing and talked my way back in many months later. The company set up me and the other crazy idealist and we were both fired within several months of each other. Needless to say, the union did little if anything to help us out. An administrative law judge sided with me over the company’s refusal to pay UI benefits as I was not found to be ‘culpable’ for the reasons I was fired.

A couple of decades later I helped remove a union from a company we trusted to be fair if we removed the union obstacle from their business interests. That was quite a leap of faith but we were trying to make a point. If the company would honor those who worked for them by being fair we were willing to go union-free.

The outcome was a mixed blessing. It is hard to determine whether or not the effort was worthwhile. The company lied about the success of non-union labor by understating performance in public but reports in the financial press outted their fabrications. This was not an honorable Fortune 100 company. That was too bad because my personal impression was most employees gave it 110% union or not. It was a missed opportunity to say the least.

As I stated earlier, I have some personal experience with these issues. To this day I have no use for organized labor. It only counters the corruption that may reside in the hearts of employers. Not all employers are bad and the same can be said of employees. But those in either group who look for unfair advantage are the scourge of the free market.

Shame on them all.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(The Founding Fathers who were delegates to the Constitutional Convention are featured in this series of posts starting with number 98. Not every entry after 98 is about the delegates.)

Daniel Carroll, Maryland

Daniel Carroll was member of a prominent Maryland family of Irish descent. A collateral branch was led by Charles Carroll of Carrollton, signer of the Declaration of Independence. Daniel’s older brother was John Carroll, the first Roman Catholic bishop in the United States.

Daniel was born in 1730 at Upper Marlboro, MD. Befitting the son of a wealthy Roman Catholic family, he studied for 6 years (1742-48) under the Jesuits at St. Omer’s in Flanders. Then, after a tour of Europe, he sailed home and soon married Eleanor Carroll, apparently a first cousin of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Not much is known about the next two decades of his life except that he backed the War for Independence reluctantly and remained out of the public eye. No doubt he lived the life of a gentleman planter.

In 1781 Carroll entered the political arena. Elected to the Continental Congress that year, he carried to Philadelphia the news that Maryland was at last ready to accede to the Articles of Confederation, to which he soon penned his name. During the decade, he also began a tour in the Maryland senate that was to span his lifetime and helped George Washington promote the Patowmack Company, a scheme to canalize the Potomac River so as to provide a transportation link between the East and the trans-Appalachian West.

Carroll did not arrive at the Constitutional Convention until July 9, but thereafter he attended quite regularly. He spoke about 20 times during the debates and served on the Committee on Postponed Matters. Returning to Maryland after the convention, he campaigned for ratification of the Constitution but was not a delegate to the state convention.

In 1789 Carroll won a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he voted for locating the Nation’s Capital on the banks of the Potomac and for Hamilton’s program for the federal assumption of state debts. In 1791 George Washington named his friend Carroll as one of three commissioners to survey and define the District of Columbia, where Carroll owned much land. Ill health caused him to resign this post 4 years later, and the next year at the age of 65 he died at his home near Rock Creek in Forest Glen, MD. He was buried there in St. John’s Catholic Cemetery.

What does it say about the Obama Administration when a federal inmate gets 37% of the vote to Obama’s 63% in West Virginia? The answer may come from the President’s position on energy issues and the fact that coal is synonymous with West Virginia. Either that or West Virginia voters don’t see a difference between electing Obama or a convicted felon.

Since Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D-W.Va.) may not vote for Obama you have to wonder if they cast their votes for the inmate in WW’s primary. Even the liberal HuffPo made mention of this story. So who is Keith Russell Judd?

In 1999 Judd was convicted of two counts of “mailing a threatening communication with intent to extort money or something of value”[6] and sentenced to 210 months in federal prison. The convictions stemmed from an incident in which he made threats at the University of New Mexico. He has appealed his conviction no less than 36 times, but each appeal has been dismissed for various reasons.

If you review the hiring practices of the Obama Administration you could make a case for Keith Russell Judd being on equal footing with other members of Obama’s crew. You can use Michelle Malkin’s Culture of Corruption as a reference guide (it’s on this blog’s right sidebar).

Judd ‘may be entitled to one delegate’ at the Socialist’s, excuse me, Democrats’ convention in September. Maybe the libs will let the guy give a speech at their little get together. But then Democrats made a political mistake by choosing NC for their convention in the first place. And Judd would simply be a distraction from featuring all the current criminal types in the Obama Administration.

I know, I’m being too critical of the folks who brought you the Fast & Furious cover-up, Solyndra, failed and successful nominees with tax evasion histories and all those members falsely accused of being communists. I couldn’t produce a post large enough to display all the suspects in the executive branch.

Vote for conservatives or turn America into France.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

sources:

The Hill

HuffPo

Wiki