A Meteor Shining from a Clouded Sky

On this sesquicentennial of a forgotten battle from an increasingly forgotten war, I remember a forgotten soldier.

Patrick Ronayne Cleburne

Like so many who have gone before him and have followed since, this Irishman symbolically represents the manly attributes of every great warrior.

Born in the cold winds of County Cork Ireland, March 1828, he would emigrate to America as a young twenty-one year old in search of a future. Settling in Arkansas, he would come to love his adopted home state. Working hard, he obtained employment as a pharmacist and a lawyer. When the Civil War broke out in 1861, he unhesitatingly served with the people he had grown to love and in just over a year would be promoted to command of a division. He would see action from Shiloh to Chickamauga and beyond through the end of 1863. His personal success led many to recognize his valor with Robert E Lee calling him  "a meteor shining from a clouded sky".

Sitting in his winter quarters 1863-1864, Cleburne began to spend an inordinate amount of time alone in his tent.

He recognized the state of affairs with his cause and knew it was inevitable that defeat would come. They simply had too few men, too few resources and time was not their friend. So this brave man assembled a remarkable proposal he felt was absolutely necessary if victory was to be had. He proposed arming the slaves, and subsequently giving them their freedom in exchange. Listen to some of his words,

"Our soldiers can see no end to this state of affairs except in our own exhaustion; hence, instead of rising to the occasion, they are sinking into a fatal apathy, growing weary of hardships and slaughters which promise no results. In this state of things it is easy to understand why there is a growing belief that some black catastrophe is not far ahead of us, and that unless some extraordinary change is soon made in our condition we must overtake it...

Like past years, 1864 will diminish our ranks by the casualties of war, and what source of repair is there left us?...As between the loss of independence and the loss of slavery, we assume that every patriot will freely give up the latter... It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all.  Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for.  It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.  We have now briefly proposed a plan which we believe will save our country.  It may be imperfect, but in all human probability it would give us our independence.  No objection ought to outweigh it which is not weightier than independence."

Though a dozen officers signed on in support, his proposal was tabled. Too many in the South could not bear the thought of such dramatic change. The political consequences fell on him as he would never be promoted above division commander though he was often the clear choice for it.

For Cleburne, the rejection did not dissuade him from the call of duty. As he increasingly saw his prediction coming true the more determined he became.

In the fall of 1864, the Army of the Tennessee approached Franklin, Tennessee. In a desperate effort, its commander John Bell Hood made what would be a fatal decision for his army and so many of its soldiers. Assembling his commanders on November 30th, angry over what he believed to be cowardice on the part of Cleburne the day before (falsely so), he ordered a massive assault on the heavily fortified Union position. He placed Cleburne directly in the center of what would be a 20,000 man charge--a charge nearly twice the size of Pickett's charge instructing him "go over the main works at all hazards." Not a man to take an accusation of cowardice lightly, Cleburne's last words to Hood before leaving the house were"I will take the enemy's works or fall in the attempt."

Dismounting his horse to share the sober news to his brigade commanders Cleburne recognized the reality that he was going to die that day. Death for him as for all brave soldiers was of less concern than failing in your duty. He told a brigade commander, "If we are to die, Govan, let's die like men."

As the enormous assault was in full swing, Cleburne had his horse shot from under him and asked for another. An officer immediately gave up his steed which itself was promptly shot. Starting out on foot, waving his cap with sword drawn, Cleburne attacked. Fifty yards from the Union lines a single bullet pierced the noble heart of this brave man and he fell with his face to the enemy.

Later in eulogy it was said,

"Where his division defended, no odds broke its line; where it attacked, no numbers resisted its onslaught, save only once; and there is the grave of Cleburne"

A century later when General Douglas McArthur was giving his famous speech on "Duty, honor, and country" he described the good soldier,

"The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training -- sacrifice. In battle and in the face of danger and death, he discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when he created man in his own image. However horrible the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind."

#patrickcleburne #battleoffranklin

Earn it

Approximately every three minutes a memory of World War II – its sights and sounds, its terrors and triumphs – disappears. Yielding to the unalterable process of aging, the veterans who fought and won the great conflict are now mostly in their 90s. They are dying quickly – at the rate of approximately 555 a day, according to US Veterans Administration figures.

They earned it--it's our turn.

"But freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it and then hand it to them with the well thought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free"-Ronald Reagan

The Vanishing Point

When visiting the National Archives, as I was standing in line to view the great documents of the United States I noticed people leaning over very close to the glass. Is it that bad? I thought. As the line moved I finally got my turn to peer at the Bill of Rights. As I found myself nose to glass I understood.

The documents are fading into oblivion. Congress....shall make no law....closer to the glass I go...regarding what exactly?

Walking away that day I could not help but think that the physical reality of the disappearing Bill of Rights mirrored what was happening in the country. What once was so clear and unchanging was fast becoming faint and distant. How can this be? Let's step back a few years and look at an example.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v City of New London that a government could take personal property and give it to another private owner to further economic development. This was based on the Fifth Amendment that says:

"No person shall [have] private property...taken for public use, without just compensation."

This expansion of the meaning of "public use" to a taking from a private holder and giving to another private holder would have a result as Justice O'Connor said,

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Many were outraged and pressed their representatives to pass laws to prevent this from happening. I am happy to report that nine years later most states enacted laws that severely inhibited the takings allowed by the Kelo decision.

All's well that ends well--or is it?

What if a majority had NOT been outraged and no state laws were subsequently passed? How would politically weak minorities withstand abuse? The answer is they would not.

Our system of governance was designed for the majority to rule. However, to protect minorities from abuse or a "tyranny of the majority" a Bill of Rights was created. We acknowledged that certain rights should not be trampled on by the simple will of a majority. As Madison said,

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party."-Federalist #10

When the Supreme Court is derelict in its duty as it was in Kelo then there no longer remains constitutional protection. The only protection is a majority passing a law reinstating the lost right.

A minority can only gain protection if the majority allows thus turning the purpose of a Bill of Rights on its head.

This same effect has been seen with the First Amendment's religious freedom. When the Court weakened religious freedom as it did in 1990 in Employment Division v Smith (removing the highest level of protection called 'strict scrutiny') the only remedy was the majority passing a law (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) to reinvigorate that right.

Unfortunately, that leaves those with strong religious convictions, including committed Christians at the mercy of the majority. Make no mistake--Christians who are serious about their faith, and not simply cultural or familial Christians, are in a minority. Though about 75% of Americans claim the name of Christ the number who are committed are much less. Consider this information from the Pew Forum on religion:

"Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. "

Also consider a recent extensive Ligonier poll across America:

"This survey reveals theological confusion, as well as a blatant attitude of rejecting what God has revealed of Himself and His will. It also reveals a significant amount of theological ignorance."

All this and more led the Colson Center to recently proclaim:

"It’s time we recognized we are no longer the “moral majority” and embrace our identity as the 'missional minority.' "


If a majority were to appear in opposition to a sincerely held religious belief  the Bill of Rights would sadly provide limited protection. Only if the majority were to choose to grant an exemption would protection likely be granted.

A mere 11 years ago in 2003 a number of states had laws banning sodomy. That was overturned that year in a case called Lawrence v Texas. Justice Scalia warned that state laws against same-sex marriage would not prove sustainable as a result of that decision but Justice O'Connor disagreed saying that laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would pass constitutional muster.

Oh how quickly things can change!

Scalia is proved prescient as we stand on the cusp of the Courts mandating gay marriage to all 50 states. With marriage laws being pervasive in our system if this occurs a host of legal attacks will happen against those in the minority who are unbending in their convictions. Even now we have witnessed the beginning of these assaults.

In 2013 in Elane Photography v. Willock a photographer who declined to photograph a gay marriage was fined $6,637.94. One of the justices on the New Mexico Supreme Court said "the Huguenins 'now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives,' adding “it is the price of citizenship.” On April 7, 2014 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case thus letting the judgement stand.

The gas, temperature and humidity controlled enclosure around the Bill of Rights cannot erase the damage already done nor completely stop the effects of time. It is slowly, inexorably vanishing.

Are our rights also approaching the vanishing point?



#religiousliberty

Solomon's Specter

"Cut the living child in two, and give half to one woman and half to the other!”

Then the woman who was the real mother of the living child, and who loved him very much, cried out, “Oh no, my lord! Give her the child—please do not kill him!” But the other woman said, “All right, he will be neither yours nor mine; divide him between us!”




Then the king said, “Do not kill the child, but give him to the woman who wants him to live, for she is his mother! "






What more effective government is there than an all-wise King ? Time has proven, however, that wise Solomons are inevitably followed by foolish Rehoboams.

The Framers of the American experiment knew their history. Carefully, and with deliberate forethought, they refused to enthrone the judiciary.

There is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from  the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the  life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control;  for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the  executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.  There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers,  that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.

Federalist #78

This balance of power is key to preventing tyranny. The allure of the wise and powerful Solomon, however, has proven difficult to resist.

The latest effort is coming from the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Passed in 1868, its sole purpose was to prevent freed slaves from being shackled again after the Civil War. They never meant for all people to be treated equally in all circumstances. If they knew Courts today would take their words and demand that homosexuals be granted the privilege of marriage, they would spin in their graves, haunted by Solomon's specter.

We discriminate regularly - for example, in employment, and disallowing felons the ability to vote and own guns. Have you looked closely at your tax return lately? We give tax breaks for various and sundry groups, thus denying it to others.

The 14th Amendment was never meant to enable the select few wise ones to substitute their own wisdom in place of the American people. Yet, that is what has happened. To quote Justice Harlan from Reynolds v Sims (1964):

"[the Court's] view, in short, is that every major social ill in this country can find its cure in some constitutional principle and that this court should take the lead in promoting reform when other branches of government fail to act."

If the law is to be created by the judicial branch, then where stands our republic? Is the law created by the representatives of the people, or created by five black robes? Are we a republic, or an oligarchy?

To quote Washington in his Farewell Address:

"If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

In the judges' attempts at playing Solomon and divining when it is correct to cut the baby in half and when it is not, they are destroying the republic.

Some will cheer when they achieve a political victory via the Court not able to be obtained via the Congress, President, and state governments. But, at some point in time, the Solomons will err too greatly in their divination and what will be finally and completely cut in half will be the republic itself.

The Reservoir of Rights

On June 8, 1789 the little man with big thoughts, James Madison, rose from his seat to address Congress.

They were reluctant to hear him (pressing financial issues) but he knew the issue had to be addressed and proceeded anyway. What was so important?

The Bill of Rights.

Madison methodically went down his list explaining each item. Toward the end noting “the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act”  he began to conclude. Before he could finish he needed to address an issue.

The issue was a problem people had with this list of “Thou shalt not’s” directed to the federal government. The Bill of Rights was not and on a practical level could never be comprehensive. So what about rights not listed? The objectors asked. Would they fall into the hands of the federal government? Madison responded by saying,

”It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."

 The “last clause of the fourth resolution” was this:

“The exceptions here or elsewhere in the Constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the Constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”

This would become the Ninth Amendment which would say:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

You see, the state representatives wanted to be clear—crystal clear. They further wanted to specify that the powers not enumerated would reside with the states. Seemingly an obvious thing  ("superfluous" said Madison) but let there be no dispute, the states said. So—they added the Ninth’s companion the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This was the vast reservoir of rights explicitly left, not to the federal government, but to the people through the power of the states. The Framers thought it was impossible to make it any clearer. Now years later, we see the insidious way the sands of time can cover even the most prominent of markers. 

One hundred and seventy-six years after Madison rose to speak, in the case GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT the Supreme Court would quote the Ninth Amendment to remarkably do the precise opposite of what the Ninth tried to make crystal clear: The federal government cannot touch the reservoir of rights. If an unenumerated right was to be found and made into law and otherwise enlarged or restricted it would be done by the people through the states. The federal Supreme Court invalidating the state law was, not shockingly, considered a “broadening of the power of the Court”. Not to worry, said the Court.

“In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the "traditions and [collective] conscience of our people"

Who becomes the discoverers and then subsequent arbiters of what the “traditions and collective conscience” of the people would be? Would it be the representative of the people in the states? Or even the representatives of the people at the previously forbidden federal level? Is this republicanism or is this an oligarchy? Who is creating the law here?

Five to nine people have waded into the deep waters of the reservoir and standing there along the edge like ministers of the Gospel in their black choir robes, they decide who should be baptized and who is, well, not worthy.

Has the ill effects of time slowly doomed the American experiment?

Tyranny, Tocqueville warned, need not announce itself with guns and trumpets. It may come slowly. So slowly that we will barely notice when we become one of those countries where there are no citizens but simply subjects. So quietly that a well-intentioned foreigner might say, “Maybe you should do something about your oppression.” And we would look up confused and say,

“What oppression?”

#ninth amendment

Living Sacrifice

Lord God--

I look and see the truly wonderful life you have given me





In picture frames I see my beautiful wife

Always smiling and full of life

I see their faces, look in their innocent eyes
I'm trying hard, I pray Father let them be fine.

I know they are asking me to lead them
They want me to stand for them and provide for them
My dreams call out to me, but what about them?











Oh Father this dying while living !

sometimes I  feel so alone

Abba, help me be what you have called me to be

Show me the way
Give me the strength

Jehovah Jireh, stand with me

I cannot do this alone

#Sanctus Real life inspired

Blind Spot

This summer, Justice Ginsburg, in response to a question about the recent Hobby Lobby decision accused the male members of the Supreme Court of having a "blind spot" in regards to the rights of women.

Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Couric asked Ginsburg this week. “I would have to say no,” Ginsburg replied.

This comment falls in line with the accusation of a "War on women", an insensitivity and lack of consideration toward the plight and concerns of women.

Reading this comment of hers I could not help but think back just a few years to a case called Kennedy v Louisiana (2008), a  case before the Supreme Court concerning the brutal rape of an 8 year old girl. What follows is the abbreviated detail on the case present in the majority opinion itself.

"Petitioner’s crime was one that cannot be recounted in these pages in a way sufficient to capture in full the hurt and horror inflicted on his victim or to convey the revulsion to society...When police arrived at petitioner’s home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found L. H. on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. Petitioner told police he [stepfather and actual perpetrator] had carried her from the yard to the bathtub and then to the bed...L. H. was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice.

The little girl had denied her step-father had committed the crime, protecting him, but the evidence was overwhelming that he had in brutal fashion raped his step-daughter. In response and pursuant to the law in Louisiana he was sentenced to death.

The Court decided that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" prevented the man from receiving the death penalty. This, in spite of the unequivocally clear allowance for the death penalty in the Constitution in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that state no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law and in the Fifth's Grand Jury Clause that guarantees that no person shall be held for a capital crime without a grand jury indictment. If you can be deprived of life (after due process) then capital punishment was clearly not "cruel and unusual punishment.'

The Court cast aside the plain meaning of the Constitution and instead based on "our own independent judgment" and the "evolving standards of decency (!) that mark the progress of a maturing society" overruled the Louisiana law. This Supreme Court ruling explicitly allowed for the death penalty to remain in place for crimes against the state (like espionage or treason) but not for a brutal rape of an underage girl. So if an Edward Snowden were apprehended he could receive the death penalty but not the perpetrator of this type of crime.

What caused me to think of this case was that of the five Supreme Court members making this decision in 2008 was a single woman--Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The same woman who six years later in 2014 would opine that the male members of the Court were insensitive to the plight of women in not mandating that an employer violate their religious beliefs and pay for a select few drugs they considered abortifacients.

                                                 Who here has the blind spot?