You know, I’ve been taking some mail of late on the subject of Trent Lott, as you may imagine. Most of it agreeing with me, but some cannot understand for the life of them why I’m upset with his actions. Well, let me explain my anger, by relating a story to you about one of the members of the Continental Congress.
The subject, is John Dickinson. Now, unless you’re a student of American history, you probably don’t know the name. I will attempt to give you a brief introduction.
Dickinson represented the Pennsylvania legislature to the continental Congress. Dickinson was by no means timid man. He had in many ways become a leader. He was a natural in the role. He was born to a moderately wealthy family in Maryland. He came by his abilities, naturally, his father having been the first judge to the court of pleas in Delaware. He studied law at the Temple in London, which was the most prestigious of all schools of law at the time.
He was responsible for writing an important series of essays “Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer” which pertained to the import and export agreements against Great Britain. Ben Franklin himself published these in London in 1768. They were later translated to French and published in Paris. He, along with Thomas Jefferson, wrote the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms. He was elected governor of Pennsylvania in 1782 and served there until October, 1785. He joined the constitutional convention in 1787, And was one of many readers of the day riding in the support of the new constitution.
Well respected, well spoken, indeed, he had a reputation as a top flight orator, he was…a leader, the likes of which we see all too seldom, today. And yet… well, watch.
The date was July 1 of 1776. The place was what has become known as Independence hall in Philadelphia. On that hot afternoon John Dickinson stood and argued strongly that the continental Congress should be reasonable people as regards disassociating themselves from the Crown. When he spoke, the other members of the continental Congress listened, respectfully, with polite attention.
“I say, let us wait. The timing is not yet ripe for proclaiming independence. Instead of help from foreign powers it will bring us disaster. I say we should hold back any declaration and remain the masters of our fate and fame. All of great Britain is armed against us. The wealth of the empire is poured into her treasury. We shall weep at our folly. “
That was the position of the Pennsylvania legislature, such as it was. Both Pennsylvania and South Carolina were opposed to independence.
(South Carolina, for its part, tended to follow whatever Pennsylvania would do, not wishing to offend it’s trading partner.) The New York legislature, in a precursor of what we’re going through with them for the last forty years or so, couldn’t make up its mind what it wanted to do. New York’s representatives, with no clear instructions from their legislature, were nigh on useless to the process.
Back and forth, back and forth.
Finally, John Adams got up. He certainly didn’t share Dickinson’s reputation as an orator. Besides which, everything had already been said that he needed to say.
Only, this time, he said it better. What he lacked in the skill of oration, he made up for, in fire. The result of his speech that day, is obvious.
When Adams was done, and the Congress left the building, John Dickinson, our Quaker friend from Pennsylvania went home. He put on his uniform… (that of a brigadier general in the Continental Army…) …and rode off in the dark, to join his regiment. Dickinson, you see, if he was holding true to his purpose of representing the people could not vote for independence from the Crown. He could, however, fight for it.
Dickinson, quite clearly saw his task as a member of the Continental Congress, as representing the people of Pennsylvania and their wishes. As a human being, he saw his task differently, and once his duties to the Continental Congress were dispatched, he went about performing his duties as an American citizen, as he saw them.
Dickinson, in his duality, is providing us an excellent example of the duties of an elected representative. He understands, and faithfully represents, the wishes of the people of Pennsylvania, regardless of his personal beliefs.
OK, enough for the short history lesson. Come up to modern day.
Trent Lott, provides a rather stark contrast to our lesson . Despite all polling data to the contrary, Mr. Lott continues to support this abomination of an immigration bill, instead of representing the interests concerns and opinions of the people of his state. When called out on the subject, he blames ‘Talk radio” for “Running the country” and continues marching off in his own direction… not understanding, or perhaps ignoring that the people running the country are not in Washington. We are forced to conclude that Mr. Lott is acting on his personal opinion of the matters at hand, not on the opinions and desires of the people that he was elected to represent.
That is a breach of the trust of those who elected him, …a corruption… on a level that is second to very few.
Corruption, you see, is usually viewed as a product of money having changed hands. But there are other kinds of corruption. Such as taking the will of the people, and your promise to represent that will, and running in exactly the opposite direction. That explains the anger, but not the degree of it. Certainly, others are equally guilty of this kind of corruption, in the current Congress.
But none quite so arrogantly. And certainly, none of them were supposedly conservative. As Mark Levin said last night, (Nod to DavidL) I defended this schmuck, because I thought he was getting a raw deal. I still think so to this day. But given the level of representation the people of his state are getting, and for that matter conservatism as a whole, I wonder if that defense was worth it.
Do you begin to understand?