The Moral Case for American Freedom

By Martin Capages Jr.

Somewhere in the preceding generations, the direction of the United States of America has careened towards an unsustainable progressive interpretation of the Constitution that will lead to further bankruptcy of the Nation and threatens individual Freedom.  The Government has set itself above the Governed.  Even the basic principles set

• Language: English
• Publisher: American Freedom Publications LLC
• Release date: Aug 11, 2017
• ISBN: 9781640084377

Martin Capages Jr.

Martin Capages, Jr. is a retired professional engineer, technical executive and an Army veteran. His technical and management experience includes aircraft design, petroleum exploration and production, computer modeling and technology applications and structural engineering. He began writing political commentary in 2009 and completed his first book, The Moral Case for American Freedom, in July 2017. His writing is from the perspective of an engineer, Christian layman, conservative and Constitutional originalist. Martin attended Missouri State University and the Missouri University of Science and Technology where he graduated with a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering in 1967. After receiving his Commission as an Army Ordnance Officer but prior to reporting for active duty, he joined Boeing Aircraft in Wichita as an Associate Engineer working on the new 737. He reported for active duty in June 1967. After completing active duty, Martin joined Exxon in Houston, Texas, with assignments throughout the U.S. and Europe to include serving as acting North Sea Development Planning Manager for Exxon in London, Production Operations in the Gulf of Mexico, Engineering Manager for the Texas Midland District, the Alaska Financial and Facilities groups, and Exxon's Western Division Computing organization. He left Exxon in 1984 to join Kerr McGee in Oklahoma as Manager of Engineering Services until 1992 when he left the petroleum industry to start his own structural engineering consulting firm, ARIS Engineering Inc., in Springfield, Missouri. He continued post-graduate studies in Civil Engineering and Management receiving an earned Doctorate in Engineering Management in 2002. He retired from full time practice in 2012.

Book preview

CHAPTER 1  THE METHODOLOGY

Previous writing procedures, particularly in the technical area, have recommended that the author answer the question, What’s the News?.  This needed sections on who, what, when, where and why?  I like to add another section called and now what?.  But I believe that this new Methodology is even better.

  Rule 1 of the Methodology begins by determining the question or controversy to be resolved.  What is the question that we are trying to answer?  There can be no answers until we know the question.  And we can only answer one question at a time.  So here is the question:

Are the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence mere guidelines for a government that should be modified to fit the times, or are they a rigid Codex for protecting the freedom of every citizen from an overreaching State?

That is the single question that must be answered.  And it must be answered for the unification, defense and ultimate survival of The United States of America as the bastion of Freedom in the World.

Rule 2 of the Methodology is to agree to think about the Big Picture.  In other words, let’s look at the benefits and risks of both alternatives.  There are benefits to following the Constitution as written verbatim and there are risks.  There are benefits in considering the Constitution as a living document and there are risks. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were put down on parchment over two hundred years ago. Times have changed considerably. The men who conceived and wrote these documents were different than today’s leaders and citizens. They were mostly learned, intelligent white men with a western European Christian spiritual belief system.  They were also educated in Europe or in domestic copies of the European system.  Most were wealthy.  So maybe their thoughts and prognostications are antiquated and no longer relevant in today’s world. The World has gone through many turbulent times since then.  The Constitution itself has been modified from time to time to better suit the situation at hand.  The Government has been asked to no longer just "Promote the General Welfare" but to Provide the General Welfare.  This additional delegation of power to the Government is called Progressivism.  The logic of this was presented by Frank Johnson Goodnow in 1916 in his The American Conception of Liberty.  The text is included beginning on Page 195.

On the other hand, we have a written agreement between the Governed and the Government that says the power of the Government is limited to that granted to the Government by the Governed.  It was a first of its kind.  It said that the rights of the individual were inalienable gifts from a divine source from above and were equally distributed to one and all.  There was no divine leader bestowed from on high with all the power to govern as in previous governments.  No, the power of the Government would be limited to only that power that the Governed agreed was best if wielded by a central authority, a Government of the People.  To ensure the Government was restricted, a system of checks and balances was set up within the branches of Government and between the branches of Government.  This belief that the power of the Government is limited by the Governed is called Conservatism. This concept can be seen in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Of the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right published in 1762, fourteen years before America’s Declaration of Independence.  A synopsis of this writing is also provided beginning on Page 194.

  Rule 3 of the Methodology is to agree on the Moral Standard for the desired outcome of the conversation between the parties in the conversation.  No one else is involved.  This is probably the most difficult component of the Methodology.  For some problems, the Moral Standard is obvious. Our young philosopher friend, Alex Epstein, in his book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, defined the Moral Standard to be an outcome that would Maximize Human Flourishing.² The Moral Case for American Freedom is a subset of that general outcome.  Can we define the Moral Standard as an outcome that Ensures the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?  Surely, we can agree on that.  But let’s refine the definition further.    Here we must use some imagination.  You must put some people together to have a conversation and then listen as the conversation proceeds.  So, for our purpose here, in this book we will pretend that the discussion is between four people, two Progressives and two Conservatives.  The Progressives are Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Conservatives are Thomas Jefferson and Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia.  If you are a member of Generation Z, you may not be familiar with these gentlemen.  You will be introduced to them later in this book.

Rule 4 of the Methodology is to be honest about what you know and don’t know.  It is easy to shout out arguments from a set of Talking Points that you did not personally develop.  But you wouldn’t be able to handle the counter argument.  However, if you did the research for the Talking Points, then you would be in a better position to successfully respond to the counter punch.  As an honest confession, let me say I found myself a bit ignorant on the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Progressivism and Conservatism.  You can overcome that ignorance with online courses at Hillsdale College, which, in my opinion, should be mandatory for every citizen of the United States.  I do know quite a bit about the Energy Business, Engineering, and Technical Management.  I am smart enough to know I will never understand the nature of politics.  Those are just some of the things I know and don’t know.  I have other opinions and the reasons why I feel the way I do, presented in Chapter 5 and the About the Author section of this book. 

But this book isn’t about me, it’s about You. You may be a grandparent who thinks the World is headed off a cliff. You may be a parent wondering why every Government decision seems to lack common sense.  You may be a high school student just looking for answers outside what you’re being force fed in the public school you’re attending.    All I ask is that you do the same inventory on yourself before going further in this book.

Rule 5 of the Methodology is to admit our mistakes in both content and method as well as noting the mistakes of those we cite as our references.  Keep in mind the question: it is simply, Should we continue on the Progressive path or return to the original intent of the combined Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution as amended?  That these Founding documents should be considered together is important.  But don’t just take my word for that.  Consider the words of Abraham Lincoln on this subject.

"January 1861

All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of Liberty to all—the principle that clears the path for all—gives hope to all—and, by consequence, enterprise, and industry to all.

The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.

The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, fitly spoken which has proved an apple of gold to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple—not the apple for the picture. So, let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger." Abraham Lincoln³

Progressives want to throw away the Preamble to Constitution.  They want the Power to be from the State, not the Governed.  The Preamble is a problem for them.  Progressives would also like to dismantle the Declaration of Independence if they could. Consider Woodrow Wilson's admonition in an address ostensibly honoring Thomas Jefferson as follows: If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface. In other words, do not repeat that part of the Declaration that enshrines natural rights as the focal point of just government not only for the founding era but for all time.

Thomas Paine says it best in his publication, Common Sense on January 10, 1776.  Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

So, we need to frame both sides in some way, perhaps the imaginary debate we mentioned previously.  It must be imaginary because none of the current members of the Government are free of the stain of Progressive thought, not even those who call themselves Conservative.  Their debates start from a Progressive point of view, not from the Founders’ view of Freedom. But before we begin this imaginary debate, we also need to try to frame the context.  We will do this with a review of the history of an imaginary country we will call the Home Country.  Situations presented are fictional until proved otherwise.

CHAPTER  2  THE HOME COUNTRY

THOSE WERE THE DAYS MY FRIEND

There once was a country where the citizens were proud of their nation and its symbols. It was a country where common sense prevailed in the citizens’ selection of their leaders and law makers.  In turn, the leaders and lawmakers respected all their citizens and made decisions based on common sense and the good of all the citizens, not just the constituency that selected them to govern.

You see, it was a united country, where the citizens could differentiate between moral right and wrong but also looked to a group of judges appointed by their leaders and approved by their law makers to settle minor differences in interpretation of the laws.

While the majority of citizens were busy living their lives, they relied on another group of citizens called the Press to watch the activities of the leaders, lawmakers and judges and report on these activities in a factual and unbiased way. The citizens trusted the Press and admired them.

It was not an easy journey to get to this point in the history of the Home Country.  There were many obstacles in the way from the very beginning. The territory now occupied by the Home Country was first occupied by aboriginal tribes that had lived on the land for 16,000 to 20,000 years, having themselves immigrated from Europe and Asia. The tribes had diverse cultures with the typical minor conflicts and some outright wars between disagreeing factions.  Some tribes welcomed newcomers to their lands while others didn’t.  They did have some common traits and some similar spiritual beliefs.  The spiritual beliefs included a creator and a mother earth.  They felt led to live in harmony with their environment.  But there were disagreements in these beliefs between the tribes.  Some of the tribes were culturally more advanced than others to include the technology of war.  They even had a type of slavery.  So, there was not a lot of difference between these natives and the rest of the world. They just had a lot of rich, fertile land with many natural resources that included a yellow metal called gold.  It would become a problem for them.

This naturally rich land would be discovered more than just a few times.  It would be found and forgotten by the Norsemen, perhaps as early as the 10th Century. The land would be warm and inviting at first but would turn cold and foreboding a century later, so it was forgotten.  It would be found again by the Spanish in the 1400s in a quest for gold.  The bloodletting for this metal would extend north and south of the equator.  It would be accompanied by a unique perspective on spiritual matters.  The hunt for gold was joined by the hunt for souls to convert to Catholicism.  Then there was another land grab invasion from the east that was joined by the need to escape religious persecution in Europe and the island nation of England.  This time the escape was from Catholicism, the Anglican Church or poverty in the hope of at least a chance to practice one’s beliefs without persecution and pursue a life filled with prosperity for oneself and following generations.

So, the seeds of the Home Country were planted by many peoples from dissimilar cultures looking for many things but they all sought one thing, Freedom.  But they wanted Freedom for themselves, not necessarily Freedom for others.  It would take a group of men and women with softer hearts and more open minds to define Freedom for All.  The men would be called the Founding Fathers.

Nearly all the Founding Fathers were Christians.  They were brave men who put their lives at risk to secure the Freedom they sought for their fellow countrymen.  But this was not a religious war.  While Christianity as an institution provided the guidance, it was what was in their hearts that provided the means to achieve the Freedom they sought for all.  The Freedom was won, and the Home Country became an independent nation.  There would be a lot to do over the next several years. This would include writing down the rules for governance that could be followed for generations to come.  This they achieved.

CITY MOUSE AND COUNTRY MOUSE

The Home Country grew as a mix of people. The original occupants of the land were conquered by the predominately white and Hispanic settlers. Wealthy white settlers embraced the slavery of blacks from the African Continent as an economic force in agriculture, an injustice set up in the New World by the Kings of Europe, and eventually rejected by the Home Country.⁴ The original occupants of the land were killed or placed on reservations.  In the west, another form of economic slavery developed.  In that case, the slaves were from Asia.  Racial prejudice was the accepted norm.

This racial element seemed to linger over the Home Country.  In previous eons of time and countries long ago, slavery was a practice where a certain people's time and energy were stolen from them by other people who conquered them through some means, usually war.  There was an unseemly justice about the practice.  After a time, it became a way to make money by selling one person to another. It became a very big business, and the Home Country was involved with the practice. This slavery issue came down to a matter of one's skin color.  The color black made one a slave. The color white made some people slave owners. Some white people thought slavery was an evil thing though and took steps to abolish it. Others used slavery to support their livelihood.  The anti-slavery white people even fought a war with other white people in the Home Country to end the practice of slavery. They were successful.  But the white/black schism continued.

The new country had to overcome many early tests of its resolve.  The mother country tried to re-establish its hold on the infant Nation.  It was touch and go for a while, but the Home Country stood its ground and stayed independent.  As the Home Country expanded in commercial trade beyond its borders, it discovered that it was not capable of protecting its citizens beyond those same borders.  The Home Country had no real history as a nation yet and was not respected by the rest of the known world. But when it was attacked by pirates in a foreign land, the Home Country leaders had to make a decision:  Either stand up to the aggressor or pay tribute.  This decision would determine the type of Nation the Home Country would eventually become. The decision was made to stand up and defeat the aggressor.  It was a good decision.

The Home Country had started its life as a rural nation with coastal population centers for immigration, manufacturing, import and export, banking and Government administration. As the overall Home Country grew, the city populations increased faster than the rural areas between the coasts. Since the non-workers lived mostly in the cities, the city populations became less physically productive but grew in numbers. The city people did stay busy with administration, bureaucracy, legal affairs, politics, banking, communication and entertainment.

Immigration into the Home Country continued as people all over the world sought a new beginning.  But there was still bigotry towards newcomers.   It highlights what happens when people cave in to their natural racial or cultural biases. Each new group became free over the course of time, but assimilation was slow.  The original Hispanic settlers assimilated into the Home Country, but new Hispanic immigrants did not.  The newly freed Blacks moved from agricultural areas to the cities or continued in agriculture as second-class citizens. The previous white slave owners were oppressed by the white anti-slavery victors and they rebelled.  They formed the Take Party and created a White militia that took vengeance on the now freed slaves.⁵ But they lost once again.  So, they tried a different approach. The Take Party passed new laws that reinstated the past