Our Fading History
I am growing increasingly fearful that our history is being lost to time.
It’s actually kind of ironic that in this age of Google and the Internet and hard drives capable of holding a century’s worth of information we are still losing sight of our past—but it’s happening.
And it’s getting worse.
As time goes by and new generations come through our public schools, history will continue to fade. It just doesn’t seem to be a priority anymore. Most schools teach kids only to memorize dates and places and names. In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue. We no longer take the time to understand the why or how of anything because of the exaggerated importance placed on the where and when.
That is one reason why I chose to write this book in a narrative style. I want people to read these stories and feel as if they were there beside the characters. I don’t want people to just read about Tokyo Rose in a textbook, I want them to understand who she really was and why she made the decisions she did. Only once you have that context can you judge whether history has treated her properly.
The same goes for most of the other people found in the stories in this book. Even if you’ve heard of the Battle of Wounded Knee, for example, you may not have really understood the roles that people like General Miles and Colonel Whitside played. And what about Thomas Edison? Are all sides of his complex life talked about or do most people only know him as a gentle genius inventor?
Americans weren’t always so ill educated. We used to know our past. We used to understand the Constitution and unapologetically teach our children that it was the greatest and most enlightened system of government ever created.
In 1828, Arthur J. Stansbury, a Presbyterian minister from New York, wrote the “Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States.” This work consists of 322 questions and answers on the Constitution and the functioning of our federal government. It was written with the explicit intention of being a concise and simple guide for use in public schools.
I found this catechism so fascinating and eye-opening that I wanted to include a small excerpt of it here. I think it’s a sad statement on our priorities as a nation that the answers found in it demonstrate a far greater understanding of the Constitution and history than the vast majority of adult Americans have—let alone our children.
Preface
That a people living under a free government which they have themselves originated should be well acquainted with the instrument which contains it, needs not to be proved. Were the system, indeed, very cumbrous and extensive, running into minute detail, and hard to be retained in the memory, even this would be no good reason why pains should not be taken to understand and to imprint it upon the mind but when its principles are simple, its features plain and obvious, and its brevity surpassing all example, it is certainly a most reprehensible negligence to remain in ignorance of it.—Yet how small a portion of the citizens of this Republic have even a tolerable acquaintance with their own Constitution? It has appeared to the author of the following sheets that this culpable want of acquaintance with what is of such deep interest to us all, is to be traced to the omission of an important part of what ought to be an American education, viz. the study of the civil institutions of our country.—We prize them, it is true, and are quite enough in the habit of boasting about them: would it not be well to teach their elements to those whose best inheritance they are?
The following work has been prepared with a view to such an experiment. It is written expressly for the use of boys, and it has been the aim and effort of the writer to bring down the subject completely to a level with their capacity to understand it. Whether he has succeeded the trial must show. He has purposely avoided all abstruse questions, and has confined himself to a simple, commonsense explanation of each article.
[…]
Q31. What was the change produced by the Revolution?
A. The different Colonies became each a free state, having power to govern itself in any way it should think proper.
Q32. Had not one state any power over the other?
A. None at all—and the several states might have remained entirely distinct countries, as much as France and Spain.
Q33. Did they?
A. No. Having been led to unite together to help each other in the war, they soon began to find that it would be much better for each of them that they should all continue united in its farther prosecution, and accordingly they entered into an agreement (which was called a Confederation) in which they made some laws which they all agreed to obey; but after their independence was obtained, finding the defects of this plan, they called a Convention in which they laid a complete plan for uniting all the states under one general government—this plan is called the federal constitution. On this great plan, or Constitution the safety and happiness of the United States does, under Almighty God, mainly depend: all our laws are made by its direction or authority; whoever goes contrary to it injures and betrays his country, injures you, injures me, betrays us all, and is deserving of the heaviest punishment. Whoever, on the contrary, loves and keeps it sacred, is his country’s friend, secures his own safety, and farthers the happiness of all around him. Let every American learn, from his earliest years, to love, cherish and obey the Constitution. Without this he can neither be a great or a good citizen; without this his name will never be engraved with honor in the pages of our history, nor transmitted, like that of Washington, with praises and blessings to a late posterity.
[…]
Q99. Is not this a better way of making the laws of a Country, than either of those we first considered?
A. It is hard to conceive how greater care could be taken that no wicked, unjust, oppressive, hasty, or unwise Law should pass. There is full time to consider whatever is proposed; such fair opportunity to oppose it, if wrong, and improve it, if imperfect; so many persons, and from so wide a space of country must agree in approving it, that it is scarcely possible any thing very injurious can be enacted; or, at least, if it is, that a different form of Government would have prevented it.
Q100. Are there not some evils which attend this mode?
A. Nothing of human contrivance is wholly free from some defect or other; and, in time of war, when the public danger is great, and it is needful that Government should act, not only wisely, but rapidly; some disadvantage may be found to arise from so deliberate a method of passing every Law. But it is far better to put up with this, than to lose the precious blessing of so free and safe a mode of Legislation.
Q101. You have said that no Laws can be made for the United States, but by Congress; may Congress make any Laws they please?
A. No. Their power is limited by the Constitution; that is, they have no power, but what the Constitution says they have. It must always be remembered, that the States, when they united to form the General Government, had full power to govern themselves; and that they gave up only a part of their power, for the general welfare. Whatever power, therefore, is not given by the Constitution, to the General Government, still belongs either to the State Governments, or to the people of the United States.
[…]
Q150. Suppose any American citizen is seized and put in prison, may he be kept there as long as those who seized him think fit?
A. No; he may get a writ of Habeus Corpus.
Q151. What is that?
A. It is a command from Court, by which the jailor is forced to allow the prisoner to be brought up before a Judge, that the cause of his being put in prison may be examined into; in order, that if there is no law to keep him there, he may immediately be set at liberty.
Q152. Must this command be given whenever it is applied for?
A. Yes, except at certain times, when this privilege is suspended; (that is, interrupted for a time, but not taken away).
Q153. When may this right of having a writ of Habeus Corpus, which belongs by the Constitution to every citizen, be suspended?
A. Only in cases of rebellion by our own citizens, or invasion of the country by an enemy; when the public danger is so great as to require persons to be kept in prison, who might otherwise be set at liberty. As soon as this extreme danger is past, the right of Habeus Corpus must be immediately restored.
Q154. Is this a very great and important privilege, and ought all Americans to guard it with the greatest care?
A. It is one of the greatest rights of a freeman—and Americans must never surrender it, under any pretext, if they value and would preserve their liberty.
Q155. May a man’s children be punished by law for his offence?
A. In some countries, where a man has been guilty of treason, (that is making war against the Government) a law is passed called a bill of attainder, by which his children are prevented from being heirs to him or to any other person; and, if he belonged to what in those countries is called the nobility, and his children would have belonged to it too, they are prevented; nor can they nor their children, nor their children’s children, recover this privilege, till an act is passed for that purpose. No such law can be made in this country; it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
[…]
Q181. Who executes the laws which Congress have made, that is, who takes care that every body shall obey the laws?
A. The President of the United States.
Q182. Can he make the law?
A. Not at all. These two powers, of making law, and executing law, are kept by the Constitution, entirely separate; the power that makes the law cannot execute it, and the power that executes the law cannot make it. (The one of these powers is called the Legislative, and the other is called the Executive power.)
Q183. Is there any advantage in this?
A. Certainly; it is the great safeguard of freedom; because, if the one makes oppressive laws, the other may refuse to execute them; or, if the one wishes to do tyrannical acts, the other may refuse to make a law for them.
[…]
Q210. Does the President take any oath before he enters upon his office?
A. Yes.
Q211. What is an oath?
A. It is a solemn calling upon God, who knows the hearts of all men, and will call every man to account for his conduct in this world, to bear witness that what a man says is true, or that what he promises he means to perform.
Q212. What is the President’s oath of office?
A. It is in these words—“I do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
[…]
Q231. Does he know what is the state of the nation better than the Members of Congress?
A. Yes; his office is such that he has a better opportunity of knowing it. Each Member of Congress resides only in one State, but the President resides at a spot in the middle of them all. It is the duty of all officers below him, to send reports of the various affairs in which they are employed, to one or other of the Heads of Departments, and these lay all the knowledge they thus obtain, before the President for his direction and assistance in the many and great duties he has to perform. He is, therefore, of all persons, best acquainted with the general concerns of this nation.
Q232. When does he lay this information before Congress.
A. He makes a very full statement of it when they first meet, in what is usually called the President’s Speech; and from time to time, while the two Houses are met, he sends to each of them messages, in which he gives more particular statements than he could do in his first general speech.
Q233. Suppose Congress wish to know from the President something which he has not told them in his speech or messages, may they call upon him to communicate it?
A. Yes, and if he does not think that the public good requires it to be kept secret, he always answers the call, and gives them the knowledge they desired, if he can do so.
Q234. Does he do more than communicate information to the Congress?
A. Yes; his duty is also to recommend to them such things as he thinks will be for the advantage of the country.
Q235. Are they obliged to do as he advises?
A. No. They pay respectful attention to what he says to them, and listen to the reasons he gives in favor of the measures he recommends, but they are at full liberty to follow their own judgments in all cases.
Q236. Is it to be desired that Congress should always comply with the advice of the President?
A. No; for then his advice would, in time, come to have the authority of a command; it would be the President and not Congress who made the laws; and the liberty of the country would be in the greatest danger. There is no more dangerous despot than one who can make his will obeyed, and yet preserve the forms of a free government. August Caesar ruled the whole Roman Empire with absolute sway, yet did every thing by resolves of the Senate, as if Rome was free.
[…]
Q245. What do you understand by a Court?
A. A place where a Judge sits to hear and determine causes according to law.
Q246. Are Courts necessary?
A. Certainly. Wherever laws are made there must be some way of determining when they have been disobeyed, and of causing those who disobey them to be punished. This is the use of a Court and of a Judge. When one person believes that another has broken the laws, to his injury, or to the injury of the public, he may cause that person to appear before a Judge and have it determined by witnesses, whether he has broken the laws or not; and if he has, he is forced to suffer such a punishment as the law directs.
[…]
Q264. How are the Judges of the Courts of the United States appointed?
A. By the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Q265. How long do they remain in office?
A. During good behavior; that is, until they resign their office or are turned out of it for some great offence.
Q266. Why are not Judges elected from time to time, like Members of the House of Representatives and Senators? and why may they not be removed from their offices unless they are proved to be guilty of great offences?
A. If Judges held their places at the mere good pleasure of the people, they would be greatly tempted to act in a partial and improper manner in order to please those who chose them to office, and to keep their favor; but when they know that no man or number of men can turn them out of office so long as they do their duty, they administer justice without fear and with an equal regard to all who ask it.
Q267. Why then should not Legislators hold their office in the same way?
A. Because they make the laws, while Judges only explain and apply them; it would be very dangerous to liberty to give our law makers power for life; they require restraint lest they should become our tyrants;—therefore their time of office is made short, so that if the people thought them unwise or unfaithful they may refuse to give them the office again.
Q268. You said that the use of Courts was to determine when the laws have been disobeyed, and causing those who have disobeyed them to be punished. How do Courts answer this end?
A. When a person is charged with having done something to his neighbor, or to the State, which is forbidden by law, the fact is judged of by a Jury.
Q269. What do you mean by a Jury?
A. A company of citizens, chosen by lot, and who have no interest in the matter, who listen to the proofs brought against the person accused, and who then agree among themselves whether the accusation has been proved or not. When they declare this agreement in opinion, it is called their verdict; and according to this, the cause is decided.
Q270. Is this a wise regulation?
A. Certainly. The trial by jury, is a most precious privilege—as it secures to every man a fair hearing, and is the best safe-guard of his liberty, property, and life; all which might be taken from him by a partial or corrupt Judge, if that officer alone had to decide on the guilt or innocence of those who are tried before him.
[…]
Q296. The majority of the people of any State may certainly alter its laws, provided they do not violate the Constitution: but may the Constitution itself be altered?
A. Yes. The Constitution being nothing more than an expression of the will of the people of the United States, is at all times within their own power, and they may change it as they like, but it ought not to be changed till it is very clearly shown to be the wish of the people.
Q297. How is this to be found out?
A. When two thirds of the members both of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall agree in opinion that an alteration would be proper, they may state such alteration and propose it to be considered by the people of all the States. The alteration must then be considered by the Legislature of each of the States, or by a Convention in each State, (which is a meeting of persons chosen by the people for this particular purpose); and if three fourths of the States agree to the amendment, it then becomes a part of the Constitution.
Q298. But if three fourths of the States should thus agree to an amendment which would deprive the remaining States against their will of their equal vote in the Senate, would such amendment be binding?
A. No. This case is provided against in the Constitution, and one other (in relation to slaves) which could only happen previous to the year 1808; but as that year is now past, no farther notice need be taken of it.
Q299. What is the supreme law of the United States?
A. The Constitution itself is supreme; and all laws and treaties made by Congress and the President, in conformity with it, are superior to any law made by one of the States, so that if the law of a State contradicts a law of Congress, the State law is no force, and the United States law alone must be obeyed.
Q300. What security have we that the Constitution will be observed?
A. The President, the Members of Congress, the Members of all the State Legislatures, and all public officers of the United States, and of each one of the States, takes an oath, when they enter upon their several offices, to obey the Constitution. But the great security for its observance lies in the wisdom and excellence of the Constitution itself, and the conviction of the whole people of the United States, that it is for their true interest to observe it inviolate. It has been tried for fifty years, and has done more to render this nation peaceable, powerful and happy than any form of government that ever existed among men.
Q301. You said that the Constitution, however wise or good, might nevertheless be amended if the people of the United States choose?
A. Yes; the Constitution says so expressly.
Q302. Has it ever been amended?
A. Yes, several times.
Q303. What was the subject of the first amendment?
A. The subject of religious freedom.
Q304. What do you mean by that?