This post has nothing to do with cats

[shadesofmauve]

I recently checked out two books pertaining early US gov't history. Triumvirate: The story of an unlikely alliance that saved the constitution and united the nation by Bruce Chadwick is about the writing of the Federalist papers, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. Constitutional debates and explanations in context are exactly what I was looking for, so I was disappointed to discover that I can't stand the writing. I'm sure there was excellent information in it, but it was hard to see past the purple descriptions of how Hamilton "must have" felt while cruising the Hudson. Baseless conjecture about a totally unrelated subject is not what I look for in a history book, even a pop one. The author seemed to be grasping at ways to make the characters human and the subject dramatic, which is a bit odd, since the characters were human and the subject is dramatic. Between that and a tendency towards over-frequent repetition (frequently of apparently irrelevant things -- he mentioned the particular boarding house where Madison stayed in new york every time he mentioned "Madison" and "New York" in that chapter) I gave it up and returned in barely started.

So Help Me God: The founding fathers and the first great battle over church and state, by Forrest Church, is promising to be a better read. I was hoping for a broader discussion than just church/state issues, but it seems likely that Church will supply some of that in the course of giving the church/state issue context. His book is organized president by president and continues to James Monroe, which is reason enough to read it, since all I know about Monroe is that he told Europe to stay out of America's playground the western hemisphere. I am a little concerned that the author compounds religion and morality, but at least he acknowledges that he does it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and see where he runs with it. It's always good to remember that the disagreement you feel while reading history might not be disagreement with the author, but with his subjects!



I admit, I'm also hoping for a book I can recommend to people who start on the whole 'this was founded as a christian nation' types. Moral Minority is an excellent book, but the title is forthright enough that I doubt people who felt that way would even open it. The goal here isn't to convert anyone to an imagined atheist utopia, either -- just to get 'em to acknowledge that the issue was complex, the world in post-enlightenment pre-great awakening flux, and the founding fathers were distinct people who frequently disagreed with each other.

Speaking of which, who exactly ARE the founding fathers? We all know the key players, but do we count every member of the continental congress? Of the constitutional convention? Are you still a founding father if you only had a chorus role in 1776? I want a paternity test on the nation.

Comments

[westrider.livejournal.com]

What, no snarky comments about a book on the Separation of Church and State being written by a dude named Church?

[shadesofmauve]

That'd be too easy. :)

[spuuky.livejournal.com]

All I have ever wondered is why people care what their intentions were in the first place. Either the position presented in an argument is justifiable and valid, or it is not, and it doesn't make any difference one way or the other what people have previously supported the position.

Speaking from a Christian position it is necessary to conflate religion and morality. Not doing so is antithetical to the fundamental belief system of the religion. So it should always be expected from any Christian author who isn't being dishonest, and should simply be factored in to your own evaluation of their ideas.

[shadesofmauve]

I think it's useful to look at why they held their position. Knowing why a law was created or revoked can give helpful perspective on current issues and potentially reveal things that are quite relevent. That's one of the main benefits of studying history. But I totally agree with you that it's absolutly ridiculous to do something just because that's what some dead guy, who lived in a totally different society, intended. It's the distinction between the in-depth vs. sound-bite view of history. We're focused (as a society) on the latter, and it's dumb. It doesn't matter at all what -Insert Important Historical Figure- really, truly wanted if what he wanted doesn't make sense NOW. And if it makes sense now, who cares whether someone two hundred years ago wanted it or not?

I'm not entirely convinced that conflating morality and ethics is fundamental to all types of christian philosophy, but it's certainly to be expected. The author was a Unitarian Universalist minister, so more likely to aknowledge morality without religion than a die-hard catholic or baptist. The odd thing is that he actually aknowledges that he plans to conflate them as a device. Now that I've read farther in his book, though, I'm less bothered... it's turning to be far more about the battle between liberty and security than 'morality', and he does discuss ethics separatley from religion (morality vs. ethics is an interesting semantic distinction, here).