Category: County Chair

    Washington’s Distillery, by Dianna Greenwood

    Washington’s Distillery, by Dianna Greenwood

    February 22, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in

    In the late 1790s, prior to his death, George Washington was trying to reduce his land holdings and simplify his operations when his farm manager, a Scotsman named James Anderson, introduced him to distilling and the potential income that it could produce for the farm. The irony with this choice was that Washington had no previous experience in the process and utilized his farm manager’s experience to open a successful distillery.

    Alcohol was widely consumed in Colonial America and, subsequently, the new nation because of the potential for diseases in freshwater. It was also widely used in social situations, medicinally, and trade or commerce, especially in remote areas of the new country. The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 is an example of how alcohol was used for trade and commerce because of the rugged landscape, which made shipment of grains difficult and expensive.

    Washington was hesitant at first to pursue another business venture due to his age, but Anderson persuaded him that it would be profitable due to the abundant crops and gristmill that Washington owned. Washington planted rye as a cover crop to keep his soil healthy for future crop plantings. In addition, unlike other large plantations such as Monticello, Mt. Vernon had a steady water supply. Anderson had extensive experience in distilling from his previous employments in Scotland and other parts of Virginia.

    After corresponding with a friend and listening to Anderson’s pitch, Washington entered the Whiskey business in 1797. During the first winter, two stills were used to produce whiskey, which totaled about 616 gallons. However, by 1798, Washington built a malthouse near the gristmill. It installed five copper stills, boilers, and tubs to increase production, and a system of wooden troughs was installed to transport water from the nearby creek into the distillery. The malt house was the largest distillery in the country, measuring 75 by 30 feet, and all five stills operated year-round. This was in contrast to the average distillery, which was 20×40 feet with only two stills maximum operating for a few months out of the year.

    Washington’s distillery operation was highly successful during his time. It produced nearly 11,000 gallons of whiskey in 1799, most of which was common whiskey, which was packaged and sold immediately to local merchants. He did have smaller batches of whiskey that were either distilled multiple times or flavored. Most of his whiskey was made of distilled rye, but when that was not in abundance, sometimes wheat was used.

    In those days, whiskey was not aged as it is now; instead, it was placed in uncharred barrels and sold to neighbors and merchants in Alexandria. This enabled Washington to make money immediately rather than wait for the whiskey to age several years and then reap a profit. His best customer was also a close friend, George Gilpin, but other merchants, farmers, and the people who worked at Mt. Vernon would purchase the whiskey. In those days, whiskey cost around 50 cents a gallon unless the higher-quality version was approximately $1.00 per gallon. In 1799, Washington made approximately $7600.00. In 1798, Washington paid $332 in taxes on his distillery production.

    Washington’s distillery continued to produce whiskey products after his death in 1799. It passed to his nephew, Lawrence Lewis, who continued the business until a fire destroyed it in 1814. The buildings were abandoned, and the entire operation would have been forgotten had it not been for Washington himself. He wrote about his operations in letters to others and we do have his ledgers to inform us of the financial aspect of running a distillery. To learn more about this and other business ventures of General George Washington please visit www.mountvernon.org. While there you will find out an abundance of information about the people[i] who worked at the distillery and on Washington’s plantations as well as learn about the man himself. He is a fascinating individual who without a doubt earned the title of First Citizen.

    [i] Both free and enslaved people worked at the distillery, and it shatters the myth that all slaves worked in either the house or the fields. Many learned valuable trades that were passed down to their descendants.

    Can Federal Law be Nullified by the States? By Dianna Greenwood

    Can Federal Law be Nullified by the States? By Dianna Greenwood

    February 8, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in /

    Nullification, often linked to states’ rights by those wary of federal overreach, has been the subject of heated debates for over two centuries. These discussions, with their rich history and complex implications, are likely to persist. However, it is important to note that nullification of federal laws under the U.S. Constitution is strictly prohibited under Article VI Section 2:

    This  Constitution, and the Law of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The popularity of nullification has increased and decreased depending on the political climate. This is because people believe that the national government has abandoned the idea of protecting natural rights, which are inherent to all individuals, and replaced it with protecting the government’s power. If you understand the original concept of the federal government, in which a limited government was split between the national and state levels, then you would also understand why the Founders were intent on this form of government.

    What onerous things does the federal government do that we would consider an overreach? Health care, environmental issues, and overregulation are among those items that many Americans consider an overreach of the national government. The national government entering issues it was never intended to solve gives a perception of the government picking winners or “groups” over the individual. So, how do we solve these problems? Do we nullify laws or secede?

    People continue to have this debate, which is a vibrant one because they are seeing the same phenomenon across all issues – a tendency and inclination to expand the powers of the government. People want a restraint on the government but do not seem to have an outlet to express this view because we view all three branches as colluding. What happens is that we do not, as Americans, promote lawlessness, and we are not yet at the point of revolution like our Founders were, so the populace turns to the states and nullification. These are great conversations, but nullification is unconstitutional as there is no right in the U.S. Constitution for states or individuals to nullify federal law. The debate over nullification was particularly heated during the time of the Alien and Sedition Act, a controversial law that criminalized criticism of the government and was seen as a clear overreach of federal power.

    However, this does not mean that resistance is futile. The judicial system and the election of representatives who align with the will of the people and the states are viable alternatives. It’s important to remember that we didn’t secede from Great Britain; we fought a revolution based on natural rights and a long train of abuse and usurpations.  Revolution should be the last resort, not the first, as it cannot be for light and transient reasons, unlike the Civil War, where secession happened over a single issue – slavery.

    Historically speaking, both Jefferson and Madison addressed the issue of nullification through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Unlike the Kentucky Resolution, which took a radical approach, the Virginia Resolution used the idea that a plurality of states needed to show the unjustness of a law when determining that a law should not be followed. Both resolutions were written in direct opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act, which was blatantly unconstitutional.

    Fast forward to the march to the Civil War, Jefferson Davis disavowed nullification, deeming it unconstitutional, even though he argued in favor of secession, which was also unconstitutional because secession is usually based on the premise of a light and transient cause versus a long train of usurpation and trampling of natural rights. In other words, you cannot stomp your feet, take your toys home, and say you do not like something and will not follow it.

    One of the reasons why nullification and secession took hold in the country during the years leading up to the Civil War is because of Senator John Calhoun and his speaking ability where he established a new basis for the founding of our country by rejecting the Federalist papers and Publius’s argument of an energetic but limited government. He disagreed with the idea that the government was established to protect natural rights and that no state is sacred. He also separates the Declaration from the Constitution and says the Constitution is a standalone document. This is an incorrect interpretation because you cannot have the Constitution without the Declaration. Calhoun believes there is a constitutional right to nullify and secede only because he interpreted the Constitution as a standalone document and a compact between the states. This is again incorrect because the Constitution is a compact between the people of the states and not the state governments. We know this because the preamble of the Constitution states, “We the people,” not “We the states of the United States.”

    Calhoun makes his argument because of the Missouri Compact, a compact between the states. Northerners are saying that Congress has the right to make laws outlawing slavery. However, Southerners cite the Northwest Ordinance (ironically written by a slaveholder, Thomas Jefferson), stating that while it may allow Congress to legislate in the Northwest Terrority (as it was then known), it was only done by a compact of the states. It was not an actual act of the National government. So, while this instance goes directly to the concept of slavery, one could make the same argument today on a different issue and say a law originating in a way that it should under the Constitution is wrong because we disagree with it, and therefore, we can nullify it.

    So, where does this argument come from? Does it come when there is a belief that all three branches have conspired to ignore the will of the people, like what happened with the Alien and Sedition Act, or when sections disagree on an issue such as slavery and what recourse do the people have when their rights are tramped on? The view is that there is no recourse through the Judiciary because if all three branches have conspired, then the Supreme Court cannot be the final arbitrator of the Constitution. However, this is where people are wrong because the Supreme Court is not the final arbitrator of the Constitution, but it does play a crucial role in interpreting and upholding the Constitution, which is the ultimate law of the land.

    Where does that leave the people? If they feel that the Judiciary is not an option, then elections are the next option. Hamilton suggests in Federalist 1 that it is up to people to reflect and choose. He states:

    It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or are they forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.

    The people’s remedy to unjust laws is elections, a process that has proven successful time and again. We saw this during the healthcare debates in 2010 and, most recently, in response to the overreach of the Biden administration. Each time, the people, through the election process, restored balance to all three branches, giving us hope that our voices will be heard.

    Therefore, it is our responsibility, as citizens who want a government that truly represents us, to keep a check on government overreach. It is not through nullification or secession (unless there is a long train of abuses and usurpations) it is through the judiciary. If they cannot be trusted, it is through the election process. Our Founders entrusted us with the power to reclaim our country, and we have exercised this power countless times. It seems we did so as recently as the 2024 election, and if necessary, we can do it again in two years.

    The Legislative Review -ARTICLE 1, by Curtis Courtney and Doug Kelsay

    The Legislative Review -ARTICLE 1, by Curtis Courtney and Doug Kelsay

    February 5, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in / /

    Since the days of Noah (or at least just after the Civil War), Texas was run by Democrats.  Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican president and thus the states of the south consistently selected Democrat representatives and executive leaders. Texas was part of the “Solid South”, a Democrat stronghold. That changed starting in the early 1990’s and was evident in the mid 1990’s when George Bush was elected Republican Governor. The Texas House and Senate both transitioned to a majority Republican in the 78th Congressional session in 2003. By the early 2010’s Texas was solidly Republican. Many politicians that had long ran as Democrats transitioned to running as Republicans. Some were truly conservative and aligned with Republican values but many simply found it expedient to change color of their coat to maintain power.

    During this transition House Speakers, starting most notably with Speaker Straus, appointed Democrats as chairs of Committees. But as Republicans grew in numbers and power, subsequent speakers did not diminish the number of Democrat chairs. This caused a rift between the Republican voters and their elected legislators.

    Q: What defines a Republican versus a Democrat? A: Their Party Platform and the resulting Legislative Priorities.

    Things came to a head when the speaker of the 88th TX House, Dade Phelan, not only appointed Democrat chairs but actively fought legislative priorities of the Republican Party of Texas (RPT), Governor Abbott and Lt. Gov Patrick. He also led a Democrat inspired “lawfare” campaign against Attorney General Ken Paxton which included sneaky moves in changing the impeachment rules at the start at the 88th Session. The 88th Legislature was called back not once, not twice, but an unprecedented third time to work the key priorities of the Governor. Under Speaker Phelan and his Democrat chairs, they successfully avoided addressing these priorities. As a result, the average Republican voter became livid and outraged because nothing important was getting done.

    This long history lead delegates of the RPT State convention to change RPT rules so they could be used to force the Republican house members to support the Legislative Priorities. The rules were changed to allow censure which is the threat of not allowing a representative to run as a Republican.

    In order for the 89th Legislature to implement the Legislative Priorities, the House Republicans, wishing to exert their majority and the desire to align with the Legislative Priorities, held a caucus on December 7, 2024 to select a speaker who would not appoint Democrat chairs. Of the 88 Republican house members that were there to start the Caucus, 26 elected Republicans, including Stan Gerdes, walked out of that Caucus meeting before it was concluded and a Speaker selected.

    The Bastrop County Republican Party (BCRP) held a meeting on December 21, 2024 to discuss the actions of our Representative, Stan Gerdes, who was one of the 26 elected representatives who walked out on the Republican Caucus. The BCRP examined the options open to them. A committee was directed to articulate our response to his actions. The BCRP reconvened on December 30, 2024 and approved the response which came in the form of a resolution condemning his actions and reminded him of his obligation as a Republican Representative. To read the full resoluiton, click here 

    Our next article will be the results of the first day of the 89th Legislature which occurred on January 14, 2025.

    Written by: Doug Kelsay and Curtis Courtney

    Electoral College: Is it Archaic or a protection of our Constitutional Republic? – by Dianna Greenwood

    January 4, 2025 by Stephanie Phelps in

    Every four years we hear the same hyperbole regarding the Electoral College: it is archaic and should be abolished the president should be elected directly by the people like our Congressman and Senators because we need to listen to the will of the people. These arguments are superficial in their nature and never really get down to the real intentions of those who make this argument because their intentions are based in emotion rather than reason.  When we hear arguments such as these, you better believe that the individual making them has limited understanding of why the Electoral College was established and is easily led by leaders looking to gain their own power. We have the Electoral College for a simple reason, the majority is wrong at times, and we have definitely seen this over the last 50 years.

    So, what led the delegates in the Constitutional Convention to choose this method of electing a president? It happened over a period of time during the convention starting on June 9, 1787, when a motion to have the President elected by State Legislatures failed. Then on June 18th, Alexander Hamilton made his famous proposal of a President for Life because there had been a stalemate on the issue. He leaves shortly after this to return to New York. His proposal is defeated but it engages the delegates to have real and substantial discussions on this issue and from July – August of 1787, we see it heavily discussed, and it is during this time the Brearly Committee is formed. Finally on September 4, 1787, the Committee makes its recommendation of an Electoral College.

    To understand the four distinct timelines in the creation of the Electoral College we must first look to what led to the first motion being defeated on June 9, 1787. Edmond Randolph introduced the Virginia Plan on May 29th which called for the creation of a National Executive that would be elected by Congress. After initial consideration of this proposal which also included a one 7 year term with no ability to be re-elected, the delegates decided they wanted to discuss other issues which was how to elect a president. This is where the motion to have an executive elected by state legislatures came about and was defeated on June 9, 1787.

    From here until June 18th, the delegates were at a standstill on this subject until Alexander Hamilton stands up and proposes a President for life. Many in the convention are shocked and surprised by this but it is now known he is basing this proposal on Washington. There is some question as to whether he really believed in this or if it was a ploy to get the delegates working as the convention was unproductive at that moment. The speech or theatrics worked, and the delegates began to work together again. In fact, Hamilton will write Federalist 68 supporting the establishment of an Electoral College.

    Beginning in July of 1787, the delegates revisit the executive branch again and agree to several issues including that the executive is elected by the national legislature. By August they have defeated four modes of electing the president and settle on sending it to a committee. The Brearly committee of ten is formed to settle outstanding issues. James Madison and James Wilson, two prominent members of the delegation, are part of this committee. They proposed that the President have its own electoral base, but Roger Sherman believed that the state legislatures had to elect the president to keep him honest. Roger Sherman was from one of the small states so this would have been a critical issue to him. A deal is finally reach, whereby the amount of representation in the Senate and Congress that each state has will determine the final electoral vote because the President must represent the entire nation. The delegates decided this was the best way to preserve our partly federal/partly national concept of government they were implementing. It was decided that Congress can regulate the election, but the states can regulate how their electoral votes are cast. This method was presented to the full convention on September 4, 1787, and was accepted by the delegates.

    Now there are limitations to who can and cannot be an elector. For instance, a senator or representative cannot be an elector, nor can anyone be holding an office of trust. Alexander Hamilton would write:

    “They have not made the appointment of the president to depend on preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to the immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons or the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.  And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the president in office.”

    The result of establishing the Electoral College is it is reflective of the sense of the whole nation rather than a few select states. If we had left it to the states, then only a certain number of states would always choose the president, and the urban areas would always prevail. This way the election is spread out more evenly across the country and no specific faction can control the outcome. It is not completely republican, but it is close enough.

    And finally, the best part about the electoral college is that it is a temporary body that disbands after the election every four years and is not made up of the same people every presidential election cycle. In fact, the system is so good that only two presidential elections have been decided in the House of Representatives. Once in 1800 and again in 1824. Additionally, we have only come close to changing this historic way of voting for the president once and that was in the 91st Congress where a resolution was presented that proposed direct election of the President. The House passed it while the Senate defeated it, and this is also another reason we have two houses to deliberate our legislation.

    The Founding Fathers were truly the most gifted generation Americans have ever seen as their foresight has saved us many a time from an oppressive government. Let us continue to uphold that tradition and make sure the next generations are steeped in American history from our beginning. It is the only way to ensure their magnificent work continues to protect the liberty that man deserves.

    Bastrop County Republican Party Resolution – December 30, 2024

    December 31, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    WHEREAS, the Texas House Republican Caucus met on December 7, 2024, to nominate a candidate for Speaker in compliance with the Platform and House Rules; and

    WHEREAS, in the third vote, 26 Republican Representatives, which included Texas House District 17 Representative Stan Gerdes, walked out of the Texas House Republican Caucus vote in an attempt to deny quorum to the caucus so that a candidate could be elected with Democratic votes; and

    WHEREAS, the Texas House Republican Caucus voted on the third ballot to support Representative David Cook of Tarrant County as their official nominee; and

    WHEREAS, Bastrop County Republican Party Executive Committee and voters from across the county are disappointed with Texas House District 17 Representative Stan Gerdes for not following the Rules of the Texas House Republican Caucus; and

    WHEREAS, the Bastrop County Republican Party Executive Committee condemns any effort by Representative Stan Gerdes to ally with Democrats to elect a Speaker who was not supported by the majority vote of the Texas House Republican Caucus; and

    WHEREAS, after extensive meetings with Representative Dustin Burrows, the Texas House Democratic Caucus, led by radical Houston Representative Gene Wu, has “released” its members to vote for a Republican Speaker Candidate other than Representative David Cook in an effort to stop Republican agenda items such as school choice, ending taxpayer funded lobbying, and ending the practice of appointing Democratic chairs; now

    THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Bastrop County Republican Party Executive Committee calls on Representative Stan Gerdes to publicly commit to supporting the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee in accordance with the Caucus vote and with the Republican Party of Texas Platform; and

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the House Speaker vote scheduled for January 14, 2025, the Bastrop County Republican Party provides notice to State Representative Stan Gerdes, that a vote against the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee, Representative David Cook, in the floor vote for House Speaker shall constitute a censurable act, given he pledged to comply with all the Legislative Priorities including  “No Democrat Chairs”.  A vote against the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee shall be considered a censurable act.

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the House Speaker vote scheduled for January 14, 2025, the Bastrop County Republican Party provides notice to State Representative Stan Gerdes to not interfere with rules or use subversive tactics such as denying a quorum or participate in absenteeism that causes a quorum to come into question.  Actions that deny quorum for the House Speaker vote, shall be considered a censurable act;

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that for the House Speaker vote scheduled for January 14, 2025, the Bastrop County Republican Party provides notice to State Representative Stan Gerdes, that a vote for a House Speaker secret floor ballot vote, will be interpreted as an attempt to hide a vote with Democrats who want Democrat Chairs, and as such, be considered equivalent to a vote for a Speaker supported by Democrats, and shall be considered a censurable act. 

    THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, in the unforeseen event the Texas House Republican Caucus nominee, Representative David Cook, withdraws his candidacy for House Speaker, a vote by Representative Stan Gerdes during the House Speaker floor vote for any other candidate who has not pledged publicly, prior to the floor vote, to comply with the Legislative Priorities of “No Democrat Chairs” shall constitute a censurable act.

    THEN THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, during the full 2025 session, a vote against or in hindrance thereof of the current Republican Party of Texas “Legislative Priorities” or the current Republican Party of Texas “Principles” in the Republican Party of Texas Platform shall constitute a censurable act and shall be considered in the censure process according to RPT Rule 44.

    The Meaning of Christmas, by Pastor John Eason, Jr.

    December 22, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    It goes without saying, even though I am saying it, most know the celebration of Christmas is far more than packaged gifts, cool cards, yard displays, and Santa and the gang. It is even more than angels, shepherds in the field, and wise men traveling from afar. I, for one, like Christmas’s cultural and religious traditions, such as lighted trees, Christmas movies, caroling, and candlelight services. Count me in on just about everything. But, deep down, I know that Christmas is about Life, Ultimate Life becoming flesh. Theologically spoken of as the Incarnation, Christ the Eternal Word becoming flesh. Emanuel – God with us.  

    With the birth of Christ, a historical shift took place, from God among us to God within us. Mary, mother of Christ, was the first to experience the great mystery of “Christ in you.” Mary was first to know the indwelling Christ. Christ dwells in the world through the hearts of people. Because Mary was the first she became an archetype for the rest of us. In other words, she is the model, the template, and the pattern that would reveal this same great truth leading to the same great experience: “Christ in you.” Christ was formed first within Mary’s womb and is now formed within our hearts. Christ in the heart is not any less than Christ in the womb.

    Let me point out a few characteristics of Mary that will help us have this same great experience that Mary had, the indwelling Christ. First, Mary was a person of faith. Luke said, “She believed the word spoken to her by the angel.” Mary’s faith must have been great to believe the impossible miracle of becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Second, Mary had a submissive heart. She responded to the angel’s word with, “Do it unto me according to your word.” Mary was willing to submit to the will and purposes of God even though it would come with a great cost. And third, Mary’s humility. Mary referred to herself as the Lord’s maidservant and later would thank God for regarding her lowly state. Mary’s womb was truly the most compatible place for Jesus to be nurtured and brought forth. Jesus would later personify those same traits that His mother had. We must obtain these same characteristics if Christ is to be formed within us. We must first believe and accept the divine purposes and surrender our lives to them in humility. 

    Let Christ richly dwell within your heart this Christmas.
    God Bless,
    John

    Federalist Paper #10: Are Factions A Grave Concern?

    December 15, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    Factions have always been a concern in any form of government but especially in a republican form of government because we take our freedoms so seriously and do not want to be controlled by one interest group. Thankfully, the Constitution sets up a system of government which limits the power of factions. Factions in our country are further limited due to competing geographical interest within a faction. Ironically, James Madison’s initial concern with factions is extremely interesting because he would later use them extensively in his political career. His concerns are valid enough though, that they have stood the test of time and are legitimate concerns for constituents in the 21st century.

    The first concern: the peoples’ will would be thrown aside to accommodate the agenda of the faction. Although this fear results from historical accounts, it is more an outgrowth of the British occupancy of the colonies through the years. The British would disregard the colonists’ interests and govern according to their interest to further the British Empire. This leads into Madison’s second concern: the public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival parties. A prime example of this would be the government shutdown in 1995-1996. The two parties were looking out for their own interest that they felt were important to their constituents but in the process caused huge problems with running the government. Thirdly a “superior force of an interested and overbearing majority decides measures.” [i]Some liberals would suggest that the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress would fall into this category. Their view is that the new leaders pushed legislation through that furthered their own interest and began initiating severe cuts in social programs. The Democrats, although the minority, used this to their advantage to show that Republicans only care about one group the wealthy. Obamacare would be a more current example where conservatives and really every day Americans believed the Democrat party was overreaching in their legislative powers. This leads into Madison’s fourth concern of the rich versus the poor and how they naturally form factions, which are good for the government, because the conflicting principles form modern legislation.

    Although Madison presents valid arguments against factions, he realized that they are inevitable and cannot be eliminated. That to eliminate factions would trample on people’s liberty and “Liberty is to Faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires.” [ii]Without liberty, the people would never be heard, and the Revolution would have been pointless; they were living in such a situation under the British and did not want to repeat the mistakes of that era. Without liberty, everyone would be required to have the same opinions, passions, and interests and this is not possible. It is not possible because men are fallible and have the right to express this fallibility to allow different opinions to emerge.

    Madison’s solutions for controlling the factions are simple and straightforward. First, the country needs to be a republic and not a pure democracy. Consequently, representatives need to be elected that represent a proportion of the population neither too large nor too small. This enables a blending of views to form a national consensus. By bringing together a limited number of people representing a vast area, interest specific factions are severely limited within the legislative process because of their competing geographical interest. This type of large republic with small representation creates a happy medium where all interest is heard yet representatives do not get attached to their constituents thereby reducing factions that would trample on people’s liberties.

    Secondly, the House of Representatives limits the use of factions because of the creation of single member districts (smds), the way district lines are drawn using a census, and limiting the number of representatives to 435. In the winner takes all situation of smds, there is no incentive for more than two parties. However, the drawbacks would be the formation of special interest groups that cover interests disregarded by the mainstream parties thus factions are formed to a degree, but their effects are limited because they are not legislating due to a lack of voter participation due to their party identification. Single Member District also helps to ensure that there are deviations from party line voting because the congressional member has to appeal to their district in order to be re-elected.

    Thirdly, the Constitution limits factions in several ways. One by implementing a census every ten years to proportion representation among the states. This results in congressional district lines being redrawn and the possibility of new representation in office as well as shifting representatives from one state to another depending on population growth or loss while maintaining that each state must have at least one representative so that its interest can be heard. Another restriction placed on the legislature by the Constitution is the number of years a Senator or Representative can serve at any given time. It was supposed to create a decent amount of turnover so that power did not get concentrated in the hands of a few people. For most of our history this was true, however since the early part of the 20th century, Congress has become more professionalized with a larger workload. Additionally, by making the Vice President the tie breaking vote in the Senate, the national interest may be better served. This is because the vice president like the President is elected by the nation and not a select group of individuals like the Representatives or Senators. Congress put additional limits on factions by limiting the number of representatives to 435 in 1929 when the Permanent Apportionment Act was passed. This creates larger constituencies thereby reducing the effects of special interest members.

    Although Federalist Paper No. 10 failed to eliminate parties, it did help to limit factions by putting forth the idea of Single Member District and pointing out the deficiencies of the factions.

    [i] Federalist Paper No. 10 pg. 43

    [ii] Federalist Papers No. 10 pg. 43

    Federalist #84 Specifically the Need for a Bill of Rights

    December 5, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    The idea of a Bill of Rights was particularly important during the Ratification of the Constitution but there were some (Federalists) who held that it was not necessary because the Constitution itself was a limiting document therefore the national government was not in a position to take rights away. The Anti-Federalist argued for a Bill of Rights and made this a condition of ratification. They felt that even if the Constitution were a limiting document, it would not stop a right from being taken away.

    In Essay #84 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton argues that a Bill of Rights is not needed in the Constitution using a specific argument: “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws and TITLES OF NOBILITY, to which we have no corresponding provisions in our constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty than any it contains.”  While the argument is true in some respects, it is also false in the extent that the Constitution is both limiting and unlimited depending on the conditions present at the time a right would come under question.

    Hamilton is correct that habeas corpus is protected unless there is a crisis, but it is the second and third part of this particular argument that fails to protect the rights of citizens.

    The second part of the argument, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, is questionable on whether this stops the usurpation of rights by the government. I contend it is not a mechanism to stop the usurpation of rights because an ex post facto law only prevents a person from being prosecuted for an act that was not a crime at the time said act occurred. It doesn’t prevent the government from suppressing rights in the future. It doesn’t present an absolute protection of individual rights. For example, without the second amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms, Congress could make a law prohibiting private ownership of a gun on the basis that people commit murders with guns and for the common defense of the union, we have to confiscate all privately owned guns. Ex post facto would say prosecution of those individuals who own guns prior to the effective date of the law is unlawful but it doesn’t prevent a right from being taken away. Since the Constitution has unlimited powers with regards to common defense, government officials could use that loophole to increase their powers over the people. Without some types of prohibitions, the government can look to increase their power by making it more difficult for the individual to protect themselves from government overreach because rights taken away will be done in the name of common defense.

    Continuing on to the third part of this particular passage, Hamilton makes his argument that the prohibition of titles of nobility protects the rights of the people. Hamilton knows that the people fear the implementation of an aristocracy because of the inherently oppressive nature of that system, and he assures the people that because the constitution prohibits this, no perceived rights will be taken away. However, Hamilton is a student of human behavior and has spoken in previous papers of ambitious or rapacious men who will do what they can to obtain power. The question now becomes, do they need that title of nobility to take away rights? The answer is a resounding no; all they would need is a perceived crisis to use the common defense loophole to gain more power over the individuals. As Hamilton has pointed out on several occasions, in past papers, human nature is such that passion for some objective will lead to the ambitious pursuit of that objective (no title of nobility necessary) to fulfill the ambition of attaining power. Hamilton knows this but it appears he chooses to ignore it and only focuses on the people’s fear of an aristocracy. Could this be because his own personal preference is towards a strong central government with a monarch like executive?

    Hamilton, who by nature is biased towards a strong central government, understands the importance of unlimited powers, and does not want that subverted by a bill of rights which could bring the government to a halt when dealing with different issues. But without some type of delineated rights, a distrust of government could form and manifest itself in such a way as to cause the creation of factions (who distrust government) to spring up and threaten the stability of the union. This could ultimately lead to disunion and anarchy which is antithetical to the intent of the founders – Hamilton included. Hamilton must know this and yet he refuses to acknowledge that such a thing could happen.

    Hamilton’s opposition to a bill of rights is perplexing, especially in light of his ultimate objective which is the preservation of the union and the assurance of prosperity. Ultimately his opposition to the Bill of Rights would be a moot point because his Federalist Papers co-writer, James Madison, would assume the issue in Congress and worked to get a Bill of Rights passed. In the years that followed, rights have been protected because of the passage of the Bill of Rights most recently with the Bruen decision regarding the right to bear arms.

    Dianna Greenwood began her service in the Marine Corps in September of 1995 and graduated from boot camp at Parris Island, South Carolina in December of 1995 and was then stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland until April 1997 when she was honorably discharge due to medical issues.

    After leaving the Marine Corps, Greenwood earned a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Arizona in 1999.  She then received her Master’s in American History and Government from Ashland University in Ashland Ohio in 2016.

    Dianna Greenwood has a long career in local and political activism both in Ohio and in Texas. In Ohio, she became the leader of New American Patriots, the local tea party in Ashland OH. She served in that position from 2009 to 2013 before deciding to focus on continuing her education. Prior to her involvement in the tea party, she had worked on the 2004 presidential campaign in Stark County along with helping on smaller local campaigns. In 2010, she was the primary campaign manager for Matt Miller who ran in the OH 16th Congressional District. Subsequently she has worked on a variety of campaigns here in TX with all but one of her candidates winning their elections.

    Upon moving to Texas in June of 2015, Dianna Greenwood volunteered at the Bastrop County Historical Society Museum prior to getting involved in local politics.  She has served locally in several current and former capacities such as Chairman of the Bastrop County Republican Party, Grassroots Director of the Bastrop County Young Republicans, Board Member of the Central Texas Republican Assembly, Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee for the Bastrop Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the Red, White and Blue Banquet Committee, a member of the Bastrop Education Foundation Committee and a member of the Bastrop Historical Society Museum’s gift shop committee. 

    In addition to her many activities Greenwood worked as an adjunct professor at Concordia University for 2 years teaching American History and then worked for a local law firm before leaving to work as the Executive Director of the Texas State Rifle Association.

    She has a daughter, Katharine, and enjoys traveling to historic sites around the country with her.

    The True History of Thanksgiving by contributing writer, Dianna Greenwood

    November 26, 2024 by Stephanie Phelps in

    The True History of Thanksgiving

    By Contributing Writer Dianna Greenwood

    For four hundred and three  years we have been taught the simple tale of the “First Thanksgiving” in which the Pilgrams gave thanks for a bountiful harvest and celebrated with the Wampanoags who were their friends. This is a heartwarming story but is not true in its entirety. There are winners and losers in history and the winners write the historical record to favor their version of events but that is not what was done by the original Pilgrims, instead other writers later did it. This is why an examination of the historical record utilizing original documents is so important. There is limited information on what is generally known as the First Thanksgiving so it is important to look at other events which may have taken place that would lead to two groups of people coming together to celebrate. But it also begs the question, was the Pilgrims celebration really the First Thanksgiving.

    There is only one historical account of this event written by Edward Winslow in one paragraph of a letter to a friend back in England:

    “Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that we might after a more special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruits of our labors. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the Company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some 90 men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.”

    This celebration would have been known as a Harvest Home and went on for three days not in November but sometime between September 21st and November 9th of 1621 (Plimoth Patuxet Museums n.d.). Part of the celebration would have included firing guns, and this would have attracted the attention of the Wampanoag people who may have thought a war had broken out.

    We have no actual information on why the Wampanoag joined the feast nor what actually happened in those three days, but we do know that for the Wampanoag it was most likely a diplomatic mission because their people had been decimated due to diseases that Europeans brought over, and this left them vulnerable to other rivals such as the Narragansetts. The Wampanoags would enter into treaties with the English that would last for approximately 50 years until King Phillips War in 1675 forever changed the balance of power between the European settlers and the Native Tribes. In fact, in the spring of 1621 the Wampanoag people and the colonists had entered into a treaty of mutual protection. Unfortunately, due to a language barrier, the treaty would favor the English colonists and ignore the Wampanoag’s governing system.

    However, what we do know, based on the Winslow account, is that the Wampanoag people with their Sachem (leader) Massasoit join with the Pilgrims in this feast and then go out and kill 5 deer bring them back and share the food with the Pilgrims during the feast. We also know that the modern day Thanksgiving dinner is quite different from what the Wampanoag people and the Pilgrims would have eaten. Through Winslow’s journal we know that Governor Bradford sent four men on “fowling” mission to obtain some type of birds to eat for the feast and because they were celebrating the first autumn harvest there would have been an abundance of vegetables on the table such as onions, beans, lettuce, spinach, and corn. Corn

    in those days was not cooked the same way as we do today but instead make into porridge that might have been sweetened with molasses. Fruit would have been in abundance as well because in that region there are blueberries, cranberries, plums and grapes. The cranberries would have been eaten like berries rather than how we do it today which didn’t begin until about 50 years after this feast.

    So, if the first Thanksgiving isn’t a Thanksgiving but instead a Harvest Home celebration then why do we consider it the First Thanksgiving? Well in the mid 1800’s, the story of this first celebration resurfaced, and it fascinated modern Americans of the time. Paintings and stereotypical images of the Pilgrims and Wampanoags began to appear during a time when Manifest Destiny was in place as the United States was expanding westward. Then Sarah Hale, the editor of Godey’s Lady’s Book, a popular magazine at the time, led the campaign to create a National Day of Thanksgiving which occurred in 1863 during the Civil War. Now there had been calls for National days of Thanksgiving and prayer before but nothing similar to what Mrs. Hale was doing. Through her persistence and work the myth of the First Thanksgiving was created resulting in a loss of historical accuracy for future generations.

    This loss of historical accuracy and cultural context isn’t the only loss, as time passed the holiday focused more on nostalgia and family and less on religion. The idea of a thanksgiving in those days was to thank God for the bountiful harvest that would sustain them through the winter months. It consisted of prayer and fasting. Many other colonists during this era also had Thanksgiving celebrations such as the settlers in Jamestown, the Englishmen who explored Canda in 1578 and the French Huguenots who settled near Jacksonville, Fl in 1564.

    The First Thanksgiving in Plimoth (sic) has many myths associated with it, but at its heart, it is a day of giving thanks for bountiful harvests and gratitude for the blessings that have been bestowed on us by our creator. That is ultimately the true meaning of Thanksgiving and while not all people share in that belief because of atrocities that occurred after that feast, it is a day to be grateful for all that has been accomplished, for the beauty around us and for the relationships we have established.

     

    Verified by MonsterInsights