Education for Freedom Interviews with Robert Hutchins

Education for Freedom Interviews with Robert Hutchins

To be free a man must understand the tradition in which he lives. A great book is one which yields up through the liberal arts a clear and important understanding of our tradition. An education which consisted of the liberal arts as understood through great books and of great books understood through the liberal arts would be one and the only one which would enable us to comprehend the tradition in which we live. 

It must follow that if we want to educate our students for freedom, we must educate them in the liberal arts and in the great books. And this education we must give them, not by the age of forty, but by the time they are eighteen, or at the latest twenty.

Robert Maynard Hutchins was educated at Oberlin and Yale, and his speaking abilities were already recognized when he addressed the annual alumni dinner during his senior year. After teaching for a year and a half at a private school in Lake Placid, New York, Hutchins was invited by Yale president James R. Angell to return as secretary of the university. While working fulltime, Hutchins completed law school, and upon receiving his degree in 1925 was appointed a lecturer. He was made a full professor, and received the additional responsibilities as the appointed Dean of the Law School. There he helped organize the Institute of Human Relations and promoted the use of modern psychological studies to evaluate rules of evidence. Hutchins’s views on education and public issues appeared in No Friendly Voice, The Higher Learning in America, and others. Later books include The University of Utopia , Some Observations on American Education, and The Learning Society.

Mr. Hutchins, as a social issue- what is wrong with the American educational system?

Robert Hutchins: “The answer is nothing.”

Mr. Hutchins, well then, what can be done about what is wrong with American society?

Robert Hutchins: “The answer is very difficult.”

Robert Hutchins: “But all these things are as nothing compared with the menace of metaphysics. I had mildly suggested that metaphysics might unify the modern university. I knew it was a long word, but I thought my audience of learned reviewers would know what it meant. I was somewhat surprised to find that to them metaphysics was a series of balloons, floating far above the surface of the earth, which could be pulled down by vicious or weak-minded people when they wanted to win an argument. The explosion of one of these balloons or the release of the gases it contained might silence, but never convince, a wise man. The wise man would go away muttering, "Words, words, words," or "Anti-scientific," "Reactionary," or even "Fascist." Knowing that there is nothing true unless experimental science makes it so, the wise man knows that metaphysics is simply a technical name for superstition.

Mr. Hutchins, do you really believe that nothing is wrong with the education system in America?

Robert Hutchins: “Now I might as well make a clean breast of it all. I am interested in education, in morals, in intellect, and in metaphysics. I even go so far as to hold that there is a necessary relation among all these things. I am willing to assert that without one we cannot have the others and that without the others we cannot have the one with which I am primarily concerned, namely education.”

“I insist, moreover, that everything that is happening in the world today confirms the immediate and pressing necessity of pulling ourselves together and getting ourselves straight on these matters. The world is probably closer to disintegration now than at any time since the fall of the Roman Empire. If there are any forces of clarification and unification left, however slight and ineffectual they may appear, they had better be mobilized instantly, or all that we have known as Western Civilization may vanish.”

Robert Hutchins: “Though apparently insoluble, must be solved if this nation is to be preserved or to be worth preserving. These problems are not material problems. We may have faith that the vast resources of our land and the technological genius of our people will produce a supply of material goods adequate for the maintenance of that interesting fiction, the American Standard of Living.”

“We have been so preoccupied with trying to find out how to teach everybody to read anything that we have forgotten the importance of what is read. Yet it is obvious that if we succeeded in teaching everybody to read, and everybody read nothing but pulp magazines and obscene literature the last state of the nation would be no worse than the first. Literacy is not enough.”

“The common answer is that the great books are too difficult for the modern pupil. All I can say is that it is amazing how the number of too difficult books has increased in recent years. The books that are now too difficult for candidates for the doctorate were the regular fare of grammar-school boys in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Most of the great books of the world were written for ordinary people, not for professors alone. Mr. Adler and I have found that the books are more rather than less effective the younger the students are.”

Robert Hutchins ended: “No, our problems are moral, intellectual, and spiritual. The paradox of starvation in the midst of plenty illustrates the nature of our difficulties. This paradox will not be resolved by technical skill or scientific data. It will be resolved, if it is resolved at all, by wisdom and goodness.”

Mr. Hutchins, you made some observations concerning vocational education can you tell me your thoughts or your interest in the subject?

Robert Hutchins: “As a result of our interest in vocational training and current information, there is today nothing to be taught except things obviously not worth teaching. Therefore, the general conclusion of anti-intellectuals is that we must have great men and women do the teaching. Only they can make the insignificant significant. If the student learns no subject matter, his life will at least be illuminated by the radiance of these great personalities. Pay no attention to what you should teach. Get Solomon in all his glory to sit behind the desk and your pupils will get an education.”

“I think they would. The trouble is that there is only one Solomon, and he has been a long time dead. What chance have ordinary teachers like us to light up the dark recesses of the cosmetic industry or enliven the reports of the Census Bureau? We have here in truth the formula of educational futilitarianism.”

Robert Hutchins: “If the question is, then, education provides the great peaceful means of improving society; and yet, as we have seen, the character of education is determined by the character of society. Still we must not assume a defeatist attitude. The alternative to a spiritual revolution is a political revolution. I rather prefer the former. The only way to secure a spiritual revolution is through education. We must therefore attempt the reconstruction of the educational system, even if the attempt seems unrealistic or almost silly.”

“We must first determine what ideals we wish to propose for our country. I would remind you that what is honored in a country will be cultivated there. I suggest that the ideal that we should propose for the United States is the common good as determined in the light of reason."

“If we set this ideal before us, what are the consequences to the educational system? It is clear that the cultivation of the intellect becomes the first duty of the system. And the question, then, is how can the system go about its task?”

“The only way in which the ideal proposed could ever be accepted by our fellow-citizens and by the educational system would be by the gradual infiltration of this notion throughout the country. This can be accomplished only by beginning. If one college and one university-and only one-are willing to take a position contrary to the prevailing American ideology and suffer the consequences, then conceivably, over a long period of time, the character of our civilization may change.”

                                   Passage from Martin's new book

What is the Economic Value of Education?

© Copyright 2010 Martin J. Chekel

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Chapter Five: The Education of Man

Jacques Maritain was born in Paris, France, in 1882.A graduate of the Sorbonne, he lectured at many universities in Europe and the United States before retiring from Princeton University This interview is from his book Education at the Crossroads, published in 1943.

Mr. Maritain; how do define the education of man?

Jacques Maritain:  “The Education of Man, though such a title may unintentionally seem provocative: for many of our contemporaries know primitive man, or Western man, or the man of the Renaissance, or the man of the industrial era, or the criminal man, or the bourgeois man, or the working man, but they wonder what is meant when we speak of man.”

“Of course the job of education is not to shape man-in himself, but to shape a particular child belonging to a given nation, a given social environment, a given historical age. Yet before being a child of the twentieth century, an American-born or European-born child, a gifted or a retarded child, this child is a child of man. “

“Before being a civilized man-at least I hope I am-and a Frenchman nurtured in Parisian intellectual circles, I am a man. If it is true, moreover, that our chief duty consists, according to the profound saying of the Greek poet, Pindar, in becoming who we are, nothing is more important for each of us, or more difficult, than to become a man.”

“Thus the chief task of education is above all to shape man, or to guide the evolving dynamism through which man forms himself as a man. That is why I might have taken for my title The Education of Man. We shall not forget that the word education has a triple yet intermingled connotation, and refers either to any process whatsoever by means of which man is shaped and led toward fulfillment (education in its broadest sense), or to the task of formation which adults intentionally undertake with regard to youth, or, in its strictest sense, to the special task of schools and universities."

Mr. Maritain; as to man, how do define man?

Jacques Maritain:  “Man is not merely an animal of nature, like a skylark or a bear. Due to the very fact that he is endowed with a knowing power which is unlimited and which nonetheless only advances step by step, man cannot progress in his own specific life, both intellectually and morally, without being helped by collective experience previously accumulated and preserved, and by a regular transmission of acquired knowledge. In order to reach self-determination, for which he is made, he needs discipline and tradition, which will both weigh heavily on him and strengthen him so as to enable him to struggle against them-which will enrich that very tradition-and the enriched tradition will make possible new struggles, and so forth.”

“From childhood on, man's condition is to suffer from and defend himself against the most worthy and indispensable supports which nature has provided for his life, and thus to grow amidst and through conflict, if only energy, love, and good will quicken his heart.”

“In answer to our question, "What is man?" we may give the Greek, Jewish, and Christian idea of man: man as an animal endowed with reason, whose supreme dignity is in the intellect; and man as a free individual in personal relation with God, whose supreme righteousness consists in voluntarily obeying the law of God; and man as a sinful and wounded creature called to divine life and to the freedom of grace, whose supreme perfection consists of love.”

Mr. Maritain; how can the child be directed toward such a goal?

Jacques Maritain: If the nature and spirit of the child are the principal agent in education, then obviously, the fundamental dispositions to be fostered in this principal agent are the very basis of the task of education. Without pretending to a complete enumeration, I should say that the fundamental dispositions to be fostered are the five following ones:

“First; the love of truth, which is the primary tendency of any intellectual nature. That children tell lies is obvious, yet most often the lies of children are not lies but only a spontaneous mythology of the imagination. Besides I am not thinking now of a love of telling the truth, but of the love for knowing the truth.”

“Second; the love of good and justice, and even the love of heroic feats, and this too is natural to the children of man.”

“Third; that disposition which might be called simplicity and openness with regard to existence. A disposition which is natural, though often thwarted by egotism or pride or unhappy experiences, and which is so elemental that we cannot easily express it in terms of psychology. For nothing is more basic and elemental than that to which it refers, that is, existence. I would describe this disposition as the attitude of a being who exists gladly, is unashamed of existing, stands upright in existence, and for whom to be and to accept the natural limitations of existence are matters of equally simple assent."

"Trees and animals are like this, though only in a physical way. In man this has to pass over and be drawn into the sphere of psychic life. We can interpret in this way the saying of Emerson: "Be first a good animal." Such a disposition is still far from the human virtues of magnanimity and humility, but it constitutes their natural soil; and it is so deeply and elementarily vital that the wounds it happens to undergo in many children, often very early, from family life and social life spoken of today as an inferiority complex with its manifold morbid "compensations"-are especially grievous and difficult to cure. "Fear and trembling," undoubtedly, are part of the great experiences of the human soul when it has become mature and enters the mysterious avenues of the spirit, but they are bad beginnings in education.”

“Fourth; the fundamental disposition concerns the sense of a job well done, for next to the attitude toward existence there is nothing more basic in man's psychic life than the attitude toward work. I do not mean by this the habit of being hard working. I am aware that laziness in children is often not real laziness but only an absorption of the mind with the workings of vegetative growth or psychophysical hardships. I am speaking of something deeper and more human, a respect for the job to be done, a feeling of faithfulness and responsibility regarding it. A lazy man, a poet if you will, may display, when he happens to work, the most passionate attachment to the inner requirements of his work. I am convinced that when this fundamental disposition, which is the first natural move toward self-discipline, this probity in regard to work is marred, an essential basis of human morality is, lacking.”

“The fifth fundamental disposition is the sense of cooperation, which is as natural in us, and as thwarted too, as the tendency to social and political life. We are confronted today with the notion of mental training and with the opposition so frequently aired between knowledge-value and training-value.”

“Does the liberation of the mind mean that what essentially matters is not the possession of knowledge but only the development of the strength, skill, and accuracy of man's mental powers, whatever the thing to be learned may be? This question is of tremendous significance, and the wrong answer has probably gone a long way to water down contemporary education.”

“Herbert Spencer long ago pointed out that if we give our pupils the knowledge which is "of most worth," as he put it, it is incredible that the pursuit of the best kind of knowledge should not also afford the best mental discipline. From quite another philosophical point of view than that of Spencer's, I think his statement to be a golden one.”

“The opposition between knowledge-value and training-value comes from an ignorance of what knowledge is, from the assumption that knowledge is a cramming of materials into a bag, and not the most vital action by means of which things are spiritualized in order to become one with the spirit. In the knowledge which is "of most worth," notably in the liberal arts, to give the upper hand to mental training, over beauty to be delighted in* or the truth to be apprehended and assented to, would be to turn upside down the natural and vital tendency of the mind.”

“Truth is not a set of ready-made formulas to be passively recorded, so as to have the mind closed and enclosed by them. Truth does not depend on us but on what is.”

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Managing America- What is the Economic Value of Education?

The education of man, in terms of practical value remains in doubt, like other values about which men have disputed since the birth of Cain and Abel; the practical value of the educational universe, both public and private has never been stated in dollars.

This economic problem concerning the value of education, started in England in 1838, has continued for years, unconsciously, as a vegetable, the outside world working as it never had worked before.

In the history of education, the most striking phenomenon is that schools of learning, which at one epoch are alive with a ferment of genius, in a succeeding generation exhibit merely pedantry and routine.

The reason is; they are overladen with inert ideas. Education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful. From the very beginning of education, the child should experience the joy of discovery. 

The discovery which they make, is that general ideas, give an understanding of that stream of events which pours through there life. 

By understanding I mean more than a mere logical analysis, though that is included.

Of course, education should be useful, whatever your aim in life.

In our system of education we are to guard against this mental dryrot. The result of teaching small parts of a large number of subjects is the passive reception of disconnected ideas, not illumined with any spark of vitality.

But if education is not useful, what is it?

Education was useful to Saint Augustine, Thomas Jefferson, and it was useful to Napoleon. It is useful, because understanding is useful, if only the use of knowledge of the past helps equip us for use in the present.

We have to ask the question; what knowledge best fits a man for the discharge of present daily functions and are these functions wholly overlooked in education?

What is the need for school courses which, bear upon economic, political and social duties?

And are these the only ones that occupy a prominent place in History?

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Managing America- What Thomas Jefferson thinks of debt and the American history of the lottery. Is the lottery the way to solve the current U.S. National Debt problem along with cutting federal spending?

Managing America- What Thomas Jefferson thinks of debt and the American history of the lottery.

Is the lottery the way to solve the current U.S. National Debt problem along with cutting federal spending?

Thomas Jefferson was not sleeping well. Jefferson had lived with debt most of his adult life, but the amounts now owed and the interest due were growing beyond any pretense that his estate could cover them.

Then one night, late in January 1826, an idea came to him. The next morning he summoned his eldest grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, and outlined a plan for a lottery to fund the liabilities. The former president, now almost eighty-three years old, was tormented by worries: his debts were increasing, he could lose all he had, including his home, Monticello, and his family could be left destitute.

 The depressed Virginia real estate prices of those days made the idea of a lottery attractive. Jefferson calculated that if he were allowed to conduct a lottery rather than attempt an outright sale, his mills on the Rivanna River would cover his debts and leave Monticello and the Monticello farm for him and his family. There was one significant hurdle. Lotteries were carefully regulated in Virginia and could be staged only with the state legislature’s approval.His document reviewed the history and use of lotteries in Virginia, and put forward his case. 

He listed lotteries that had been run in Virginia since the Revolution and included the financial objective of each, usually public works. He made no attempt to minimize this issue but built his case with a summary of his more than sixty years of state and national public service, concluding with his most recent endeavor, founding the University of Virginia.

The use of lotteries to satisfy private debts was familiar to Virginia planters of Jefferson’s generation. Before the Revolution, advertisements appeared frequently in the Virginia Gazette promoting “A Scheme for disposing of, by way of lottery, several valuable tracts of land,” and the like. Jefferson got firsthand experience when he helped manage a lottery for his cousin, George Jefferson, in 1768.

Debt had become a way of life in the colony because British merchants were willing to extend long-term credit for consignments of produce, usually tobacco. With this credit, the planters could indulge in the growing commercial market stemming from London. If a crop failed, sale of land or slaves was the fallback for revenue when no more credit could be had.

But as debt increased, and because there was little specie circulating in the colony, selling large tracts of land grew difficult. Smaller parcels offered through a drawing of lottery tickets purchased for as little as £5 to £10 each stood to attract wider participation.

Martha Wayles Jefferson was entitled to one-third of her father John Wayles’s estate, which was sizable but heavily encumbered with debts to British creditors. In such situations the debts could be avoided if the estate remained untouched until creditors were paid, but if the assets were distributed, the debts moved with them.

In 1774, as Jefferson and his brothers-in-law Francis Eppes and Henry Skipwith studied the estate, they were confident that sales of the less-desirable lands could liquidate the British debts. The plan was sound in 1774, but then came the Revolution.

Yet getting to this “work” of liquidating personal debts never seemed to fully capture his attention. He was far more intellectually and emotionally engaged in the challenges of shaping a new nation. In the years that he was minister to France, secretary of state, vice president, and president, he expected that the salaries he drew would cover his living expenses and so leave the profits from his farms to be applied toward his debts.

During Jefferson’s two terms as president, the office provided an attractive annual salary of $25,000. From this sum, however, he had to pay the staff for the President’s House and his own secretary, as well as cover travel, entertainment, and miscellaneous expenses. The fine food and wine served at the president’s small dinner parties became legend, but stocking larder and cellar was costly. As he prepared to leave office, Jefferson was shocked to learn that by trusting “rough estimates in my head,” he had exceeded his salary by three to four months, which meant he had a debt of about $10,000 that had to be covered.

A loan was arranged, and though he had written to his daughter Martha of the “gloomy prospect of retiring from office loaded with serious debts,” he maintained in his characteristic optimism: “I nourish the hope of getting along.”

His finances worsened in retirement.

The War of 1812 disrupted commerce.

With peace came a brief period of inflated agricultural prices, but that economic bubble burst.

As prices fell, the Second Bank of the United States began to tighten credit, creating the Panic of 1819.

But a recession can be hard to predict, and this one lasted for the rest of Jefferson’s life.

What Jefferson termed his coup de grace was delivered on a loan he cosigned for longtime friend Wilson Cary Nicholas. The amount was large, two notes at $10,000 each, but Jefferson felt obligated. As president of the United States bank in Richmond, Nicholas had arranged and endorsed notes for Jefferson, and he was connected to the family as the father-in-law of grandson Jefferson Randolph. Nichols died in October 1820, and his estate, valued at $350,000 when Jefferson had signed his notes in 1818, was now greatly depreciated as well as heavily mortgaged. Jefferson had to add the $20,000 note with $1,200 yearly interest to his own sizable debt.

A severe devaluation of Virginia land prices had troubled Jefferson even before Nicholas’s death, when he had tried his usual fallback of a sale of a small parcel of land to cover an interest payment. Jefferson’s financial situation became public with his lottery petition, presented to the Virginia legislature February 8, 1826.

The lottery bill said that only a fair evaluation at the current land prices could be attached to the properties that were to be offered.

On a second vote February 20, however, the lottery passed by a substantial majority in the Virginia legislature.

Once the bill passed and the property was appraised, Jefferson Randolph engaged lottery brokers Yates and McIntyre of New York. There were to be 11,477 tickets offered at $10 each, with the prizes the Monticello estate, the Shadwell mills, and one-third of Jefferson’s Albemarle County lands.

Jefferson’s situation spread, and concerned citizens of New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Philip Hone, persuaded Jefferson Randolph that the money could be raised by public subscription in a manner far more dignified than a lottery.

Committees were formed in New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, and meetings were conducted in Virginia as well. Approximately $16,500 was raised in a relatively short period. This was a small amount compared with a total debt calculated at more than $100,000 mad Jefferson think that the American populace had not forgotten him. With the idea of a public subscription, the lottery was put aside.

Thomas Jefferson Randolph determined to revive the lottery and asked Yates and McIntyre to advertise tickets in the Richmond Enquirer late in July and again in September and October. In early 1827, he traveled to Washington to petition Congress for an act that would make the lottery national, but without success. Why Jefferson Randolph let go of the idea is unclear, but on February 20, 1828, James Madison wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette that “the lottery owing to several causes has entirely failed.”

The sale of Monticello with an adjoining 552 acres was completed in November 1831, Jefferson’s art collection was sent to the Boston Athenaeum for sale there -with little interest.

The exact amount of the debt liquidated by these sales is not known, Jefferson Randolph assumed the remainder of his grandfather’s debt.

Thomas Jefferson hated debt.

He believed it compromised freedom of choice, whether attached to an individual or to a nation. As president, he was proud of reducing the national debt. In his personal finances, he was never so successful.

Is the lottery the way to solve the federal spending problem?

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Managing America- Alexander Hamilton’s views about National Wealth

History is a storehouse to be entered only as occasion requires is divided into natural and civil, treating the facts as natural non-human or actions of man. History without using interpretation is a reasonable method to report intrinsically important facts as intended by the author of the thought.

Alexander Hamilton-Secretary of the United States Treasury - 1789 to 1795

Hamilton sought strong central government acting in the interests of commerce and industry. He brought to public life a love of efficiency, order and organization. In response to the call of the House of Representatives for a plan for the "adequate support of public credit," he laid down and supported principles not only of the public economy, but of effective government.

Hamilton pointed out that America must have credit for industrial development, commercial activity and the operations of government. It must also have the complete faith and support of the people. 

There were many who wished to repudiate the national debt or pay only part of it. Hamilton however insisted upon full payment and also upon a plan by which the federal government took over the unpaid debts of the states incurred during the Revolution.

Hamilton also devised a Bank of the United States, with the right to establish branches in different parts of the country. He sponsored a national mint, and argued in favor of tariffs, using a version of an "infant industry" argument: that temporary protection of new firms can help foster the development of competitive national industries. These measures -- placing the credit of the federal government on a firm foundation and giving it all the revenues it needed -- encouraged commerce and industry, and created a solid phalanx of businessmen who stood firmly behind the national government.

Given the concept of economic thought is a recent, historically speaking, of modern man, what value can the study of antiquity be in today’s society?

The main thought that comes to mind is how true wealth was created.   

Wealth today is created by paper of a perceived value.  Paper money today is a promissory note. The value of stocks and bonds are based on a perceived value of another entity.

The question; what is the value of anything?

Mr. Secretary: What are your thoughts about national wealth and revenues?

Secretary Hamilton: “The nations with whose wealth and revenues we are best acquainted are France, Great Britain and the United Provinces. The real wealth of a nation consisting in its labour and commodities, is to be estimated by the sign of that wealth, its circulating cash. There may be times, when from particular accidents, the quantity of this may exceed or fall short of a just representative, but it will return again to a proper level, and in the general course of things maintain itself in that state.”

“The circulation of France is almost wholly carried on in the precious metals, and its current cash is estimated at from fifteen to Sixteen hundred millions of levirs. The nett revenue of the kingdom, the sum which actually passes in to the publick coffers, is somewhere between three hundred and sixty, and four hundred millions, about one fourth of the whole of its currency. An estimate of the wealth of this nation is liable to less fallacy than of that of the other two, as it makes little use of paper credit which may be artificially increased and even supported a Long time beyond its natural bounds.”

“It is supposed that the gross sum extracted from the people by the collectors of the revenue may be one third more than that which goes in to the treasury, but as their exactions are excessive and fall too heavy on particular orders who are by that means reduced to indigence and Misery it is to be inferred, that with moderate and reasonable expenses of Collection, the present revenue is as great as the Kingdom can well afford from its present quantity of wealth.”

Secretary Hamilton added: “The circulating cash of Great Britain in paper and specie may be stated at about forty Millions of pounds Stirling. Mr. Home supposes it to have been at the time he wrote his essay on the ballance of trade, about thirty millions; other writers have carried it to fifty and it is probably in a mediam that we shall find the truth. I do not include in this the whole amount of Bank notes, Exchequer bills, India bonds &c &c, but only such part as is really employed in common circulation and performs the offices of current. cash. In 1775 by Doctor Price's statement the nett revenue of Great Britain was ten millions-that is about one fourth of its current cash as in France.”

“I have never met with any calculation that might be Depended upon of the current cash of the Seven provinces. Almost the whole of their coin as well as large quantitys of plate and Bullion are shut up in the Bank of Amsterdam. The real wealth of the bank is beleived to he about fifteen Millions Sterling though upon the Strenght of this fund it has a Credit almost unlimited, that answers all the purposes of Cash in Trade. As the Dutch by their prudent maxims have commonly the rate of exchange throughout Europe in their favour, and a considerable balance of Trade, the use of paper credit (which in part also depends upon the particular nature of their Banks) has not the same tendency with them as in England, to banish the precious metals. We may therefore suppose these to be here as in France the true sign of the wealth of the nation. If to the fifteen Millions in bank we add two Millions of specie for the  retail circulation, and various transactions vi business we shall I imagine have nearly the true stock of Wealth of the United Provinces.”

Secretary Hamilton continued: Their revinues amount to something more than four millions: and bear the same proportion to the stock from which they are drawn as those of France and England. I confess however the data in their case are not sufficiently ascertaind to permit us to rely equally on the result. From these three examples we may venture to deduce this general rule-that the proportion of revenue which a nation is capable of affording is about one fourth of its circulating cash so far as this is a just representative of its labour and commodities.”

“This is only applicable to commercial countries, because in those which are not so, the circulating cash is not an adequate sign; a great part of domestic commerce is carried on by barter, and the state [must] receive a part of its dues in the labour and commodities the selves. The proportion however of the revenues of such a state to the aggregate of its labour and commodities ought to be the same, as in the case of Trading nations to their circulating cash, with this difference that the diffeculty of collection and transportation, the waste and embezzlment inseperable from this mode of revinue would make the real advantage and ultimate gain to the State infinnitly less, than when the public dues are paid in Cash.”

Secretary Hamilton concluded: “When I say that one fourth part of its stock of Wealth is the revenue which a nation is capable of af-fording to the Government, I must be understood in a qualified, not in an absolute sense. It would be pre-sumptuous to fix a precise boundary to the ingenuity of financiers or to the patience of the people; but this we may safely [say] that taxation is already carried in the nations we have been speaking of to an extent which does not admit of a very considerable increase without a proportionable increase of Industry. This suffices for a Standard to us, and we may proceed to the application.”

“From a comparison of the several estimates I have seen of the quantity of current-cash in this Country previous to the War (specie and paper) I have settled my opinion of the amount at thirty millions of Dollars, of which about eight might have been in Specie. One fourth of this by analogy was at that time the proper revenue of these states, that is seven and a half Millions of Dollars.”

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Managing America-Abraham Lincoln remembers Thomas Jefferson

All members of the United States Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution.  Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass laws by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

It is scarcely questioned that intended by those who made it the Constitution for the reclaiming of what we call Rights of Man from England and the intention of the lawgiver today.

Mr. Lincoln: What do you think of the words of Thomas Jefferson - all men are created equal?

Abraham Lincoln: “There are some foreshadowings on this subject. Our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence; in which, unlike the good old one, penned by Jefferson, they omit the words, all men are created equal.'”

“Why?”

“They have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one, signed by Washington, they omit , We, the People,' and substitute `We, the deputies of the sovereign and independent states.'”

“Why? “

“Why this deliberate pressing out of view, the rights of men and the authority of the people?”

“Happily the human mind is so constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied.”

 “If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution-certainly would, if such right were a vital one.”

Abraham Lincoln added: “All the vital rights of minorities, and of individuals, are so plainly assured to them, by affirmations and negations, guarantees and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration.”

“No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions.”

Mister President: Is it your idea to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?

President Lincoln: “I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Mister President: What is the rightful authority of the people?

President Lincoln: “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended.”

“While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.”

 “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution - which amendment, however, I have not seen-has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.”

“To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

"The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor."

Mister President: As you mentioned, why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?

President Lincoln: “In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.”

“By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.”

“While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.”

“My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it.”

“Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either.”

“If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.”

Mr. Lincoln: What do you remember about death of Thomas Jefferson in 1826?

Abraham Lincoln: “The end came on the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of his famous Declaration and two hours before his fellow signer, John Adams, passed away in Massachusetts.”

“His oldest grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, described his death to biographer Henry Randall: On Monday, the third of July, his slumbers were evidently those of approaching dissolution; he slept until evening, when upon awaking he seemed to imagine it was morning, and remarked that he had slept all night without being disturbed "This is the Fourth of July." He soon sunk again into sleep, and on being aroused at nine to take his medicine, he remarked in a clear distinct voice, "No, Doctor, nothing more."

“The omission of the dose of laudanum administered every night during his illness caused his slumbers to be disturbed and dreamy; he sat up in his sleep and went through all the forms of writing, spoke of the Committee of Safety, saying it ought to be warned. As twelve o'clock at night approached, we anxiously desired that his death should be hallowed by the anniversary of independence. At fifteen minutes before twelve we stood noting the minute hand of the watch, hoping a few minutes of prolonged life. At four A. M. he called the servants in attendance, with a strong and clear voice, perfectly conscious of his wants. He did not speak again. He ceased to breathe, without a struggle, fifty minutes past meridian-July 4, 1826. I closed his eyes with my own hands. He was at all times, during his illness, perfectly assured of his approaching end, his mind ever clear, and at no moment did he evince the least solicitude about the result; he was as calm and composed as when in health. He died a pure and good man. It is for others to speak of his greatness.” 

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Healing America by  Dr. Moses Maimonides

What was the connection between Moses Maimonides, Sir Frances Bacon, Thomas Jefferson, and the U. S. Government?

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1621) who succeeded in propagating, in England, the inductive experimental method of research as a scientific weapon; a fact based on the medical writings of Maimonides, not widely known,  had already proposed such scientific investigation and personal observation some four hundred years earlier.

The intellect of Bacon was one of the most powerful and searching ever possessed by man, and his developments of the inductive philosophy revolutionized the future thought of the human race.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and third President of the United States, was this nation's greatest champion of a representative republic and the rights of man and studied the philosophy of Maimonides that formed some of his personal and political ideas. Maimonides as a lawgiver, he has been recognized by the United States Congress as one of the greatest alongside Hammurabi and Thomas Jefferson.

Born in Muslim-ruled Spain in March 30, 1135, Moses Maimonides was deeply conversant with Arabic philosophy and literature. By the time he was thirty, he was known for his seminal works on the Jewish practices and law, his books earned him respect and influenced generations of Christian, Muslim and Jewish thinkers and his influence in philosophy is equal to that of Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, and Kant; in religion, he is as significant as Moses, Martin Luther, and Saint Augustine. His life in these areas is well documented.

The purpose of this book is to emphasize Moses Maimonides’s life as a physician and as such his remarkable human health cures and solutions that will help change the medical and social trends which are now needed to Heal America.

The answers will be reveled in a series of interviews with him from his ten book medical writings which document the Cause and Cure for Asthma and Diabetes

After 800 years, modern medicine has still not offered cures for these common health problems.

They have only produced products to treat or mask the health problem.

As a physician, Maimonides is associated with Hippocrates as a founder of modern medicine and in Egypt, his training as a physician earned him a place in the entourage of the great Sultan Saladin.

In his writings he described many conditions including asthma, diabetes, hepatitis, and pneumonia, and emphasized moderation and a healthy life style. His treatises became influential for generations of physicians.

He was knowledgeable about Greek and Persian medicine, and followed the principles of humorism in the Greek tradition of Galen the physician however he did not accept authority but used his own observation and experience. Maimonides interactions with patients attributes what today would be called intercultural awareness and respect for the patient's autonomy. 

The Oath of Maimonides

The Oath of Maimonides is a document about the medical calling and recited as a substitute for the Oath of Hippocrates.

The Oath is not to be confused with the Prayer of Maimonides. The Prayer appeared first in print in 1793 and has been attributed to Marcus Herz, a German physician, pupil of Immanual Kant.

His medical writings;

•             Extracts from Galen, or The Art of Cure,

•             Commentary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates

•             Medical Aphorisms of Moses

•             Treatise on Hemorrhoids

•             Treatise on Cohabitation

•             Treatise on Asthma

•             Treatise on Poisons and Their Antidotes

•             Regimen of Health

•             Discourse on the Explanation of Fits

•             Glossary of Drug Names

On Sale - Amazon Kindle: Healing America by Dr. Moses Maimonides “Common Remedies for Good Health”

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

“The Story of the Physical Psychology” - How the Human Body relates to the Universe

Introduction

This book is about the Physical Psychology, how the human body relates to the universe. The material for this book is sourced from the private book collection owned by Edgar Cayce. 

The present age is so distinctly one of change and transition that few individuals think about life and destiny, most remain satisfied with ancestral and traditional dogmas.

Yes, it is an age of change, but also an age of search and that is its greatest virtue.

For out of the growing confusion of change, search ultimately will find better ways of living with universal truths and therefore, about human life and the universe as a composite of inherited forms and ideology of thought regarding the nature of the existence of mankind.

The perfecting of human behavior is both a science and an art, there-fore, may be viewed as a scientific process, exercising the utmost intelligence and judgment. It is possible to arrive at ideal standards for conduct through the use of this scientific judgment, as Socrates did.

However, a scientist, whose mind is principally occupied in one particular line of investigation, is not liable to recognize a new truth in natural law, until it has been brought to his attention.

"All truths exist independent of man, who may discover and apply them, but cannot generate them. When a belief is proven to be a truth, then it becomes knowledge, which implies understanding, and can be proven by the power of reason.”  Sir Francis Bacon

Science and Natural Truth

The cause of human life, the very rapid motion of the earth as it revolves in its orbit, drags the elements of matter against the delicate waves of ether of the universe, the force that is necessary to carry on the very process of human life.

Since everything there is in the entire universe is located in the "Big Wheel," therefore the Principle of Human Life must be included.

I have understood that the Principle of Human Life was something like a spirit, or power, or non-material force, or influence which was instilled into man, animals and plants by the creator, back to the time of the creation, and due to the Principle of Human Life, there is organization, evolution from living organized matter was how man’s mind is finally developed.

I would like very much to understand how it appears that the principle of human life and the mind of man are contained in the "big wheel" and thus the role of the Principle People.

The subjoined series of dialogues between notables, epitomized in the contents, are all based upon the hypothesis that Time bears a constant mathematical relation to the universe of Matter and Energy. 

Time, used in this way corresponds with our ordinary conception of eternity, in that it extends to infinity past, and infinity future, whilst at the same time we recognize the present existence of all forms of matter, and all modes of energy.

To understand the history of science lessons learned by these notable’s in the past, we need to put the truth into perspective for you to understand the process of the universe’s awakening in the human family.

(1) What Time is and is not.

(2) What the cause of Life?

(3) What are the Brains Compositional parts and the modus operandi of its formation?

(4) Why the mind varies in the same individual at different times, and in different individuals at the same time.

(5) The relation existing between "sense" and a "subconscious" mind.

(6) What is the modus operandi of the Mind?

(7) To explain how, and why, different phases of Mind (Subconscious, Subliminal, Hypnotic, Objective, Primordial, Dual Mind, etc.) exist, and how any one of these varieties is related to the others.

(8) How Memories are made and reproduced.

(9) Why it is necessary that there be two sides, or halves to the brain, in order to manifest Consciousness?

The Universal Spirits

Like a song they came with pure tones in their heart of the concert piano, rising to the vibration of the full orchestra, bringing awareness from a less familiar realm to life on earth.

Book On Sale -Amazon Kindle “The Story of the Physical Psychology” How the Human Body relates to the Universe © Copyright 2010 Martin J. Chekel All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or trans-mitted in any form or by any means without permission by the author.

Managing America- Businesses and Governments use of propaganda to influence the public.

”Idols of the Market place are the most troublesome of all, the proneness of men to allow their desire, pride, prejudice, hopes, and prepossessions to blind them to realities and men's inclination to trust their five senses, despite their fallibility, without enlisting the help of experiments, they are semantic fallacies, notions imposed on the mind by words which entangle and pervert the judgment”.  Sir Francis Bacon, 1597

Within the next years, Americans need to identify themselves with their destinations rather that their origins and old beliefs.

As we enter the new decade, one must as the question, why do our businesses and governments continue the parse the English Language when communicating to the general public?

A good example is the word budget. Every news headline, interview with officials, press releases, and autocratic statement uses the word “budget” to defend their requests for funding for their needs,  in reality requests for funding is NOT a budget.

So, when one hears the federal proposed budget is X or the state proposed budget is X, it is really NOT a budget, it IS a request for funds by the departments. 

This means there are NO budget “cuts”, only “cuts” in requests for funds. 

Once a decision is made on how much funding will be provided for the requests of funds, can the term budget be used. 

The challenge America will have in the next 25 years, will be how well our elected officials, not the autocratic department heads, handle request for funds.

The Influence on Public Opinion and Knowledge

People's actions are strongly influenced by their knowledge base. People act on their beliefs. Knowledge can make for independence if it helps people meet their world more confidently and realistically. One can manipulate a person’s actions by corrupting their knowledge base.

Propaganda; information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc. is used by warping knowledge, historical truth, or ignoring it completely. Those who have wanted others to remain independent have always recognized this fact and those who want others to become dependent have opposed the spread of knowledge.

Propaganda; the ten common uses are;

Bandwagoning

Bandwagoning is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime to influence the Collective behavior; Collective consciousness; Collective effervescence; Communal reinforcement and Crowd manipulation and plays an important part in modern advertising.

Card stacking

Card stacking is a propaganda technique that seeks to manipulate audience perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another s an advertising technique. Card Stacking is used when the best features of a product are emphasize but problems that the product can cause are made to seem less- extremely effective in convincing the public.

Sweeping statement

Generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts an indefinite, unspecific, or undetailed statement: to speak in generalities about human rights. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved.

Lesser of Two Evils

The "lesser of two evils" technique tries to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option in politics and political science that of two bad choices, one isn't as bad as the other.

Name Calling

Name calling occurs often in politics, an attack to humiliate another person that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea, by linking the person or idea being attacked.

Pinpointing the Enemy

Pinpointing the enemy is used in political campaigns and debates. This is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy.

Plain Folks

The plain folks device is one in which the speaker presents him or herself as an average Joe, a common person is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person.

Stereotyping

Stereotyping used often to reduce a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil used to influence prejudicial thinking.

Testimonials

Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a person, product or idea.

Transfer

Transfer is often used in politics, an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item.

Fear

Fear immobilizes your ability to make decisions and locks you in a state of insecurity and lack of trust. 

When a subject is presented with goals are to create fear, just ask the questions;

Why are they telling me this?

Why should know is now? 

Is this their way to divert my attention from something else?

My favorite example of how to recognize someone is using fear to divert my attention from a real danger or truth is from a business trip to the fine New Orleans, LA. 

This three day trip included an evening “Alligator Hunt” with a flashlight, which I refused to go on. 

The kindly older gentleman who was the national sales manager of the host firm convinced me to join the 14 member party as a “good sport”.

Soon I was on board a flat bottom boat with very low sides and was being instructed how to use the flashlight by moving it slowly along the side of they boat to look for alligator’s eyes in the water.

Then came the warnings of dangers, do not put your hands or head over the side of the boat the gater’s will get you, we have lost four people that way last year. Do not yell, that attracts them to the boat and then we are all in trouble.

At that moment I got a tap on the shoulder from my host- the older gentleman behind me. 

He said, “Son let me tell you something about business and politics, you hear the boat pilot scaring you about the alligators, hell son we are only in 18 inches of water.  You put your foot in that water and you will be bitten by so many snakes you will be dead in 30 seconds.”

“So when someone is trying to scare you, always look behind the reason and look for the snakes.”

Historical Truth

"No pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth."  Sir Francis Bacon

Historical truth, as Sigmund Freud conceived it, can be defined as a lost piece of the subject's lived experience that is accessible only through the work of construction.

For the historian, by contrast, the past is separate from the present, and even if there are causal links between the two, their order of succession remains unchallengeable,  since what endows an event with its historicity is precisely the fact that it occurred at one time that will never be repeated.

Was Adolf Hitler's rise to power an experiment in distorting historical truth and using in propaganda to control and create fear in the German and European public?

“When government ceases to regulate and begins to manage, ceases to be an impartial umpire in the economic game and becomes a player, it attempts to use the vast financial power of blank check government, uses the prestige of the executive office to purge truth from the undesired representatives of the people, and use an excess of law is despotism.”  Sir Francis Bacon 1605

A thought

The Government is afraid to allow men to use his own private stock of reason for their health care, they suspect that this stock is small and do better to avail themselves of the general bank of the nation.

Is our clear understanding that national health insurance is not necessary for our own ability to obtain good private health care?

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Managing America: Small Is Beautiful-Economics as if People Mattered

E. F. Schumacher's critiques of Western economics, first published in 1973, Small Is Beautiful brought British economist to a wider audience during the 1973 energy crisis and emergence of globalization. The Times Literary Supplement ranked Small Is Beautiful among the 100 most influential books published since World War II. A further edition with commentaries was published in 1999.

Small Is Beautiful is divided into four parts: "The Modern World," "Resources," "The Third World," and "Organization and Ownership."

In the first chapter, "The Problem of Production", Schumacher states that the modern economy is unsustainable. Natural resources like fossil fuels, are treated as expendable income, when in fact they should be treated as capital, since they are not renewable, and thus subject to eventual depletion. He further argues that nature's resistance to pollution is limited as well.

He concludes that government effort must be concentrated on sustainable development. Relatively minor improvements, for example, technology transfer to Third World countries, will not solve the underlying problem of an unsustainable economy.

Schumacher's philosophy is one of "enoughness," appreciating both human needs and appropriate use of technology.

It grew out of his study of village-based economics, which he later termed "Buddhist economics," which is the subject of the book's fourth chapter.

He faults conventional economic thinking for failing to consider the most appropriate scale for an activity, blasts notions that "growth is good," and that "bigger is better," and questions the appropriateness of using mass production in developing countries, promoting instead "production by the masses."

Schumacher was one of the first economists to question the appropriateness of using GNP to measure human well-being, emphasizing that "the aim ought to be to obtain the maximum amount of well-being with the minimum amount of consumption."

E. F. Schumacher: " A modern economist is used to measuring the 'standard of living' by the amount of annual consumption, assuming all the time that a man who consumes more is 'better off' than a man who consumes less. A Buddhist economist would consider this approach excessively irrational: since consumption is merely a means to human well-being, the aim should be to obtain the maximum of well-being with the minimum of consumption. . . . The less toil there is, the more time and strength is left for artistic creativity. Modern economics, on the other hand, considers consumption to be the sole end and purpose of all economic activity."

Schumacher’s philosophy prescribes an orientation toward “regional” development strategies, which involve primarily local production for local use in economic development and the elimination of poverty.

In the present economic development of globalization orientation towards exports so often prescribed by international economic institutions, his philosophy entails the rethinking the attitude towards human economic development and well-being in life.

Schumacher’s most radical break with the mainstream of economic thought, however, comes with his willingness to sacrifice economic growth  for a more fulfilling working, family, and community life.

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.

Managing America: Interviews with President Abraham Lincoln on his thoughts about the Constitution and the Rights of Citizens, the Rights of States, and the Rights of the Federal Union

The Constitutional facts with which I shall deal with in this interview are familiar - however there is something new in the general use I shall make of them.

If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences in these interviews are at the discretion of the reader.

Mister President: Your thoughts about the Constitution?

President Lincoln: “It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government.”

“They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success.”

“Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.”

“I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.”

“It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever -it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

Mister President: In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New-York Times, Senator Douglas said: “Our fathers, when they framed the government under which we live ?, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now.” Your thoughts about his statement?

President Lincoln: “I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas.”

“It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?”

“What is the frame of government under which we live?”

“The answer must be, "The Constitution of the United States." That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, and under which the present government first went into operation, and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.”

“Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution?”

 “I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the present government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time.”

“Their names, being familiar to nearly all and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.”

“I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the government under which we live."

“What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood "just as well, and even better, than we do now"?  

Mister President: The proper division of Federal authority in the Constitution, between the Executive branch and the legislative branch must come into play regarding the validity of such a law, how do you explain this?

President Lincoln: “Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and as such approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.”

“No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country.”

“Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it - take control of it - even there, to a certain extent."

Mister President: In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was in session framing it, the idea of amendments came before the Congress of the Confederation; and within knowledge of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, what are your thoughts regarding amendments?

President Lincoln: “The constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after, the act enforcing the ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the ordinance, the constitutional amendments were also pending.”

“The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were preeminently our fathers who framed that part of "the government under which we live" which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories.”

“Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other?”

“And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we-better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?”

“It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the govern-ment under which we live."”

“And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitu-tion, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.”

“I go a step further. I defy anyone to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century, declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.”

Mister President: Than I assume the Federal government has no Constitutional control over States rights.

President Lincoln: “Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did.”

“To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject all progress, all improvement.”

“What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.”

Mister President: Is it your idea to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?

President Lincoln: “I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Mister President: What is the rightful authority of the people?

President Lincoln: “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desir-ous of having the National Constitution amended.”

“While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.”

 “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution - which amendment, however, I have not seen-has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.”

“To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

“The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.”

Mister President: As you mentioned, why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world?

President Lincoln: “In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judg-ment of this great tribunal of the American people.”

“By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.”

“While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.”

“My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it.”

“Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either.”

“If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.”

Mister President: In your opinion what right do people have to revolutionize or replace their present government?

President Lincoln: “Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

“This is a most valuable a most sacred right a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it.”

“Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”

“More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose this movement.”

President Lincoln added: “Such minority was precisely the case of the old Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.”

Mr. Martin Chekel, a noted international businessman and author of the thought provoking “Managing America” six book series and the retrospective eight book series “The Diary of American Foreign Policy 1938 – 1945” that laid the foundation for US foreign policy the past seventy-four years.