Leaves of Grass

by Walt Whitman

“The Americans of all nations at any time upon the earth have probably the fullest poetical nature.  The United States themselves are essentially the greatest poem…Here is not merely a nation but a teeming nation of nations.” – Walt Whitman, from his introduction to Leaves of Grass.

It is during times of great social change that iconic artists, writers, and poets emerge whose works reflect and express the spirit of the times.  Walt Whitman (1819-1892) was one of these icons and his epic poem cycle, Leaves of Grass, describes a young nation attempting to define itself while reconciling the conflicts left unresolved at its inception.  Whitman was born at a time when slavery was ripping the United States of America into feuding camps:  abolitionists wanted slavery to end on purely moral grounds while slave states depended on the plantation economy in order to produce cash crops such as tobacco and cotton.  In the years leading up to the Civil War, friends and family members would often come to blows over the issue of slavery because there was no middle ground.  Either slaves were full humans and therefore entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” under the Constitution, or they were on a par with livestock, entitled to no rights whatsoever.  In the end, it would take the catharsis of war to settle the question, but the end of the war was the beginning of the social turbulence created when tens of thousands of freed slaves abandoned the plantations of their birth, with little more than the clothes on their backs, for the hope of paid work in the smokestack industries of the northeast.

As this drama unfolded, Walt Whitman’s inner world roiled as he watched, listened, and reported on the national argument.  The greatness of the United States came from the idea that we are a nation of laws, not of men, and that all men are created equal.  Only the most intellectually dishonest people could argue that slaves were not human beings, and while he himself did not favor slavery, Whitman did not fully embrace the Abolitionist movement, because he felt it was somehow antithetical to the American ideal.  Whitman recognized that slavery as a practice was dehumanizing; that even the most beaten down slave was still a man or woman in possession of a soul, capable of goodness and evil, and made of the same stuff as his or her master.  The question of slavery notwithstanding, Whitman understood that the American ideal transcended the lesser aspects of human nature, allowing our more noble character traits to define us:  a pure example of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.  Slavery and the American ideal were incompatible, but the southern United States depended on slavery for their survival.  Whitman recognized that resolving this issue was going to be painful, perhaps ruinous.

Leaves of Grass, first published in 1855, describes America and Americans in words the way a mixed media collage or abstract expressionist painting tells a story through visual imagery.  In the introduction to the poem cycle, Whitman writes that  “the genius of the United States is not best or most in its executives or legislatures, nor in its ambassadors or authors or colleges or churches or parlors, nor even in its newspapers or inventors…but always most in the common people.”  Whitman himself was of modest origins and worked in journalism and publishing for most of his young life, taking time out to nurse Civil War soldiers before becoming a US government employee after the war ended.   He knew the meaning of work and was not afraid to get his hands dirty.  Whitman had little in the way of formal education, but had a high aptitude for the English language and became a writer at a young age.   In his early thirties, Whitman decided to become a poet and completed the first edition of the collection of poems which would establish him as one of America’s seminal literary figures.

Reading Leaves of Grass is a journey deep inside oneself.  Whitman’s struggle to make peace with ethical dilemmas, sexuality, religion, death and relationships is not unique:  it is something common to almost every human being, fortunate enough to live free from tyranny, who seeks a life with meaning.  His poems make another point which is that even though our constitution gives us freedom, we Americans do not always agree on what it means to be free.  Whitman received harsh criticism both for his free-form writing and for his treatment of sexuality in Leaves of Grass.  Some said it was immoral, pornographic, homoerotic, or all three.  Just the same, Whitman continued to revise and republish the work up until his death in 1892, and it remains a classic piece of American literature to this day.

I decided to read Leaves of Grass after finding my husband’s copy bookmarked by his terminally ill brother.  The first bookmark fell on a verse discussing immortality, the second on sleep – eternal and otherwise, the fourth on a verse about God, and the fifth about final judgment.  Clearly, my brother-in-law was preparing himself for the end and these poems were helpful to him.  So out of sympathy I read the first three verses of “Song of Myself” which begin as follows:

I celebrate myself,

And what I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

I loafe and invite my soul,

I lean and loafe at my ease….observing a spear of summer grass.

And I was hooked which surprised me because I have never enjoyed reading poetry.  As a child, I loved listening to poems and nursery rhymes with their song-like cadences and colorful phrases; the captivating blend of stories and songs set to verse.  One of my fondest memories is of my mother’s voice reverberating as I rested my head against her while she read from “The Family Book of Best Loved Poems” with her arm tucked around my shoulders, my little sister on her other side, and my baby brother on her lap.  If I could relive one moment of my childhood, it would be this.

The rhythmic poems I loved as a child are the product of a great tradition of spoken and –eventually –  written language.  Epic poems were how histories survived from generation to generation and across cultures.  Traveling orators committed poems to memory and earned a living by entertaining crowds while preserving histories until they could be written down.  The classic poems from pre-literate societies relied on  metered verses with repeating phrases and epithets to make them easier to memorize.  Some surviving examples of this spoken tradition include Homer’s “Iliad” and “Odyssey”, and Virgil’s “Aeneid” in Greek; Vyasa’s “Mahābhārata” in Sanscrit; and “Beowulf” of unknown authorship in old English. 

Unlike his predecessors and most of his contemporaries, Walt Whitman crafted free-form verse which had a more emotional and expressive quality than cadenced rhyming verses.  Reading Leaves of Grass engages all the senses as if one is sharing Walt Whitman’s experience in the moment.  I can see why it appealed to my brother-in-law when he believed he was dying, still hoping for a miracle.  (Perhaps the poems have curative powers because not only did my brother-in-law survive his high risk surgery, but his body remains completely cancer free some three years later.)  It took me the better part of a month to read Leaves of Grass in its entirety, taking it a few verses at a time, but when I was finished I felt like I could appreciate the beauty of life more deeply than before.   Walt Whitman is considered a “transcendentalist” in that he sought greater and more profound truths than what we can sense and prove scientifically.  What this means is that he could see God in a single blade of grass.

Copyright 2011 Teresa Friedlander, all rights reserved

John Adams

John Adams by David McCullough

Revolution. War. Independence. Republicanism. Democracy. Constitution. Federalism. Government. Freedom. Justice. Rights. Each of these words has been integral to our national dialogue ever since King George III decided that England was more entitled to wealth created in the American colonies than those who created the wealth. Anger and resentment in the colonies spawned this dialogue which eventually led to a war for independence in 1776. The decision to fight the King – an act of treason – was made by a group of men led by some of America’s, indeed, history’s, greatest thinkers. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin immediately come to mind but there was one more: John Adams, without whom the war for independence from England might have been lost before it began.

Of all the delegates to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, John Adams of Massachusetts was the most passionate about independence from Great Britain. Almost until the eve of war, the delegates were about equally divided on the question of declaring independence, with a few on the fence. Mr. Adams’ greatest accomplishment was obtaining a unanimous vote for going to war against England, hence the phrase “united we stand, divided we fall”. Of the 13 colonies, only Georgia did not send a delegation to the first congress because that colony depended on British soldiers to fight the Creek Indians who were preparing for a series of attacks. Fifty-five delegates of high social standing in the other twelve colonies journeyed to Philadelphia to convene the first Congress on September 5, 1774. A year earlier, Benjamin Franklin had tried unsuccessfully to call such a meeting; but it took the closing of Boston Harbor by the English in response to the Boston Tea Party to provoke a sense of urgency amongst the colonists.

The first session of Congress was aimed at gaining the respect of the Monarchy and Parliament which had recently established the “Coercive Acts”. These laws were intended to punish the Massachusetts Colony for dumping tea shipments into Boston Harbor, and were referred to in the colonies as “The Intolerable Acts”. England legitimized capital crimes in the name of the King, required colonists to provide quarters to English soldiers, intruded in the governance of Massachusetts, and closed the port at Boston to coerce payment for the dumped tea. Several colonies realized that King George’s treatment of Massachusetts was the beginning of a widespread crackdown on personal liberty and pursuit of wealth. “No taxation without representation” became a rallying cry in New England and beyond.

In order to get the attention of the King and Parliament, the First Continental Congress developed a “bill of rights” for the colonies defining what each citizen was entitled to by virtue of being alive. Additionally, this Declaration of Rights and Grievances explained specific objections to English laws infringing on the American colonies. Finally, the petition to the king stated that if the colonies’ demands for redress were not met, then there would be a boycott against all trade with Britain.

England responded by billeting solders in Boston and using punitive measures to quash the growing rebellion. As tensions escalated and Britain’s military became more aggressive, a Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1776. England was unquestionably determined to regain control of the colonies and considered the colonial militiamen to be traitors and therefore subject to execution. It took the better part of two months for the Congress to draft and unanimously adopt a Declaration of Independence, in which each delegate pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor to the cause of liberty. Signing the Declaration was a deeply courageous act of faith and proof of the collective will necessary to move from winning liberty to creating a government reflecting the best of human ideals. Of all the signers, no one worked harder to build consensus than John Adams, and like all great statesmen he knew the value of compromise.

David McCullough, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and biographer, recognized that John Adams was a new type of man: an original American. He was the son of a farmer, studied law at Harvard College, practiced law on the court circuits, and maintained a farm in Braintree, Massachusetts. Mr. Adams, in addition to possessing great intelligence and a thirst for knowledge, was a passionate man whose love for his wife, Abigail, survives in hundreds of letters that passed between them. Only in America, where hard work and leadership were worth more than good breeding, could a man like John Adams rise from his humble origins to become one of the world’s great political figures. And only in America could a woman be a true partner to such a man.

History books are often not much fun to read, but John Adams is written with the passion of the subject himself as if Mr. McCullough somehow channeled President Adams’ spirit while researching and writing this book. His appreciation for Mr. Adams and the other delegates to the Continental Congress who sweated for weeks in Philadelphia as they argued about questions of slavery versus abolition, patriotism versus treason, negotiation versus war, Federalism versus states’ rights – divisive issues, all – shows in every sentence of this book. The men who defined the new nation and unique form of government came to understand that by every state giving up some autonomy in exchange for a strong central government, the whole would be much greater than the sum of the parts.

What is most fascinating about John Adams is how our nation continues to debate some of the same issues which threatened its formation in the first place. Slavery was critical to the plantation economies of the southern states and arguments over banning the practice sparked a long-running argument over states’ rights and Federalism. Modern politicians and political party machines keep this argument alive with the simplistic term “big government”, as if government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” is a bad thing.

Unfortunately what has happened in the United States of America is that we have become mired in polarizing disputes and thus have no understanding of our core values. Is basic healthcare a human right? Should every child receive an education, and if so what do all children need to know? Are senior citizens entitled to Social Security and Medicare? Is every citizen entitled to housing? Food? Work? Should citizenship be granted to people who work hard and pay their taxes even if they were not born here? Do we deny food, medicine, education, sanitation to those who are not citizens? Do we strip Constitutionally-granted citizenship from children born here whose parents are in this country illegally? If we don’t support a war, should we be required to pay for it? Can government agencies commit murder in the name of national security? These are complicated questions requiring serious, thoughtful analysis. What we get instead are shallow soundbites , labels, and signs – “Conservative”, “Liberal”, “Country First”, “Change”, “Maverick”, “Tax and Spend”, “Peace Now”, “No New Taxes”, “Illegals Go Home”, “Learn English”, etc. – which serve only to keep the public angry and anxious.

If only the political parties and lobbyists would disappear so that citizens could come to a consensus about our values as a nation. By agreeing on values and where the federal government ends and the state governments begin, we might find direction and our congressmen and senators could legislate rather than playing political games in an effort to get re-elected. This is all wishful thinking, unfortunately. The political parties and lobbyists are stronger than ever now that corporations can “buy” elections by outspending the opposition. Even though we need those great minds now more than ever, it is probably a good thing that John Adams and his contemporaries are resting comfortably in their graves. I am afraid the ignorance and ugly partisan politics which keep us from taking care of our country would make the “founding brothers” wish they hadn’t bothered going to war against the English.

Copyright 2010, Teresa Friedlander, all rights reserved

The Constitution of the United States of America

REQUIRED READING:

The Constitution of the United States of America

by James Madison and other delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 representing New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia

Most of us are familiar with the introduction, “We the People, of the United States, in order form a more perfect union …, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” With all 27 amendments, it is roughly 4500 words long and takes about one half hour to read, but have you ever taken the time? The first time I did, it was out of boredom; literally, there was nothing else to do and I was stuck in a waiting room. The second time, however, was because I had recently finished Founding Brothers , by Joseph J. Ellis, (ISBN 0-375-40544-5) which tells the dramatic story of how a roomful of thoughtful men, across a hot summer in Philadelphia, crafted one of the world’s most important and exemplary documents.

The story of the Constitution begins with the Declaration of Independence and ends with the building of the National Archives in Washington, DC. Once independence from England was achieved, the “several states” agreed to unite under the Articles of Confederation. This loose agreement inevitably led to the eruption of numerous problems which nearly doomed the fledgling nation. Inflation was out of control, the government was too weak to wage an effective war, and there was no process for resolving interstate trade disputes. The lack of a strong, central government meant that each state could operate without regard to its neighbors, and this led to bitter conflicts. Moreover, revolts within states began springing up, causing many to fear anarchy and chaos.

James Madison, a young philosopher and political theorist, devoted several years to the question of how to make the new nation work and determined that the Articles of Confederation must be replaced by a stronger agreement in which each state ceded some of its power to a central, or federal, government. This federal government would write and execute laws which would apply uniformly to every citizen of every state and would supersede any laws written by the states’ legislatures. He wrote, “Let it be tried then, whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority”. States’ powers would, he recommended, be “subordinately useful”. All he had to do was get the states to agree.

Madison and John Tyler, both of Virginia, opened the door for a constitutional convention by putting forward a proposal that the Continental Congress assume the power to regulate trade within the Confederation. This led to a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, in September of 1786, the outcome of which was a call, by Madison and Alexander Hamilton, to Congress to summon delegates from all states to assemble and revise the Articles of Confederation, and Congress complied. The objective, in the words of George Mason, was “…establishing a wise and just Government.”

Each state was invited to send delegates of their choosing to the meeting scheduled for May 14, 1787, at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. But it wasn’t until May 25th that a quorum was present, given the distances and difficulties involved in traveling at the time. In the end, the states appointed 74 delegates and of those, 55 participated. Rhode Island declined to be part of the convention due to suspicions of a conspiracy to overthrow the existing government which worked to that state’s advantage.

George Washington was ailing and suffering from personal problems which nearly kept him home, but at the last minute he decided to journey from Virginia to Philadelphia. Benjamin Franklin, at 81 and ill with gout, was still active in business, science, and philosophy and took on the role of the “Sage of the Constitutional Convention.” Without these two venerable statesmen, it is hard to imagine a successful meeting, because other major figures from the Revolution were unavailable. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and John Jay were busy on foreign assignments. Others, including Patrick Henry, “smelt a rat” and boycotted the proceedings. They believed that their personal liberties, so hard won from the English, were at stake and wanted no part in the convention.

Once a quorum of seven states was obtained, discussion and debate about how to modify the Articles of Confederation began. Within a few weeks the delegates determined that the existing Articles could not be amended and should be replaced with a new form of government. At issue were questions such as regulation and taxation of slavery, fairness in representation of states of different sizes, and developing a central economy based on trade. These issues were divisive and seemingly irreconcilable, but the group’s leaders did a masterful job of crafting compromises which ultimately led to the government which we live under today.

In reading about the Constitutional Convention, it is clear how the effort could have fallen apart at almost any point. Tempers flared and accusations flew and yet, the group understood that they must not fail, for failure would communicate to Europe that the new nation was fragmented and weak. The most divisive and complicated issue – slavery – could not be resolved and so a compromise was reached: slaves would count as three fifths of a person for purposes of representation and federal regulation and taxation of slave traffic would be put off for 20 years. Abolitionists were unhappy with this compromise, but without it the constitution would not have been written. At the same time, there was tremendous tension between those who believed in a strong central government, the Federalists, and those who favored a smaller more narrowly focused central government. Finally, the question of protecting personal liberties had to be addressed.

Balancing the interests of small and large states required two legislative bodies: the House of Representatives based on census and the Senate by virtue of statehood. This creation helped the convention build the consensus required to design the new government. An Executive branch of the government would execute the laws passed by Congress and a Supreme Court would rule on constitutional questions. This brilliant triad with checks and balances is the reason why the United States of America has endured for more than two centuries.

In all it took the delegates to the Constitutional Convention fewer than 100 days to complete their work before copies were printed for distribution to each state where the people – not the state governments – would ratify it. During the ratification period, many amendments were offered by the states’ conventions. It was clear to the Federalists who were pushing ratification that the debating would continue for some time.

With nine states ratifying it, the Constitution became the law of the land on June 21, 1788. George Washington was inaugurated as President of the United States on April 30, 1789, but it wasn’t until February 2, 1790, when the Supreme Court held is first session, that the new government became fully operational. Just the same, it was extremely fragile. Federalists and anti-Federalists fought bitterly about the need for guarantees of personal liberties. While the Federalists had been the winners in the debate over the new form of government, the anti-Federalists had the stronger argument concerning freedom. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the newly united states a copy of the 12 constitutional amendments recently adopted by Congress. Two years later, 10 amendments – the Bill of Rights – were ratified by three-fourths of the states. A more perfect union had indeed been formed.

While the document itself is securely housed in the National Archives building, our Constitution’s safety is not guaranteed. We the People need to pay attention to how our government operates because if we don’t, our personal liberties can be taken away piece by piece and the legislative branch – which represents us – can become irrelevant. If that were to happen, what would stop the government from reverting to an oppressive regime such as the one we defeated in 1783?

By Teresa Friedlander (copyright 2007)