congress

Heated Political Debates

July 12, 2013 by TimBryce

If you think political fighting is bad now, you don’t know your history.
BRYCE ON POLITICS

As members of the 21st century, we tend to believe the political discourse of this country has reached new heights. The sad reality though is we pale in comparison to our predecessors. For example, the parallels between the Obama era and that of Jefferson is actually quite remarkable. To illustrate, I recently completed Jon Meachum’s book, “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power” (2012) and read about the presidential election of 1800 pitting Jefferson against his old friend, John Adams (the second President). Like Washington before him, Adams had been a Federalist. Jefferson, on the other hand was a Democrat-Republican (the origin of the Democratic Party as we know it today).

By 1800 there were already sharp ideological differences between the parties. Whereas the Federalists sought a strong federal government patterned after the British monarchy, Jeffersonian Democrats were more in favor of states rights and upholding the rights of the common man. The Federalists controlled New England, while the Democrats controlled the South. The disparity between the two parties is essentially no different than the Democrats and Republicans of today. Interestingly, Jefferson won New York which ultimately broke the log-jam (and edging out Aaron Burr).

Both parties controlled different newspapers, thereby providing a vehicle to attack each other and communicate their positions to the public. This was long an accepted form of communication until 1798; as the country approached the election of 1800 where it became apparent the Democrat-Republicans were gaining momentum, the Alien & Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalist controlled Congress, and signed into law by Federalist John Adams. The Sedition Act prohibited criticisms of the government and was viewed as a serious threat to the First Amendment by Jefferson and Madison who fought to overturn it.

The Federalists also tried to pack the courts. There is no clearer example of this than Adams picking his Secretary of State, John Marshall, to become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, even though Marshall didn’t share Jefferson’s views, he was a cousin and administered the oath of office to Jefferson. The Federalists also passed the Midnight Judges Act which made sweeping changes to the judiciary before the Democrat-Republicans took control of both the executive and legislative branches.

The discourse in Congress was much louder and violent than what we are familiar with today. To illustrate, in a Congressional debate in 1798, Democratic-Republican Congressman Matthew Lyon implied that Connecticut Federalists, including Roger Griswold, were corrupt. Hearing this, Griswold called Lyon a coward on the Senate floor. Lyon responded by spitting in Griswold’s face. Following this, a motion to expel Lyon from the Senate failed. Two weeks later, Griswold charged across the Senate floor and began striking Lyon with a heavy wooden cane about his head. Lyon retrieved hot tongs from a nearby fire pit and defended himself. However, Griswold was able to disarm him. The two exchanged blows briefly until they were finally broken up. This was not the first or last time, Congressmen would physically fight on the floor of the Capitol, but it gives you an idea of the heated passion of the day. Despite today’s political hyperbole, I am not aware of an incident in recent memory involving fisticuffs on the floor of the House or Senate.

Such incendiary oratory has actually been with us for a long time. For example, consider the debates over issues such as the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Jackson’s dismantling of the National Bank, and just about every other argument leading up to the Civil War. All were just as inflammatory as the discourse of today, maybe more so.

I just wonder what effect television has had on Congressional arguments. I cannot help but believe it has somehow calmed the passions of the speakers. Without it, I can well imagine some rather loud and visceral arguments, with maybe some canes and tongs thrown in for good measure. Hmm…sounds like a good angle for reality TV doesn’t it?

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com

For Tim’s columns, see:
timbryce.com

Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.

Listen to Tim on WJTN-AM (News Talk 1240) “The Town Square” with host John Siggins (Mon, Wed, Fri, 12:30-3:00pm Eastern), KGAB-AM 650 “The Morning Zone” with host Dave Chaffin (weekdays, 6:00-10:00am Mountain), and KIT-AM 1280 in Yakima, Washington “The Morning News” with hosts Lance Tormey & Brian Teegarden (weekdays. 6:00-9:00am Pacific). Or tune-in to Tim’s channel on YouTube.

To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.

Town Hall Meetings

October 12, 2009 by TimBryce

“If its a choice between attending a Grand Master’s official visit and attending a Masonic Town Hall meeting, I’ll take the Town Hall meeting any day of the week.”
– Tim Bryce

Next week I celebrate my 10th year of service in Freemasonry. Although it doesn’t seem that long, I have had the opportunity to observe several inefficiencies in the fraternity and have commented on them accordingly and made suggestions for improving them. One that rubs me the wrong way is the Grand Master’s official visits to the various Masonic districts in his jurisdiction. When I first heard about the visits I was anxious to attend and find out not only what was going on at the Grand Lodge level, but at the District and Lodge levels as well. In other words, I was looking for a “heart-to-heart” dialog between the GM and his constituents. Frankly, I was disappointed as most visits consisted of nothing more than a long litany of introductions of appointed officers, a glossy report of what is going on in the jurisdiction, and then the GM sits back and lets the Craft pay homage to him by making donations to his charity and accepting honorary Lodge memberships. In other words, nothing of substance is actually accomplished at these visits and the discussion is normally unidirectional. I realize the Grand Master is a busy man, but I was expecting something more in-depth, such as a dialog regarding the problems facing the Lodges in the District. Apparently, this is of little concern as it is never discussed. This bewilders me as this is a golden opportunity to talk one-on-one with the leader of our fraternity, but such is not the case.

Instead, it would probably be more productive to hold a “Town Hall Meeting” whereby the Masonic leaders poll the lodges as to trends, ask what is going on at the grassroots level, and seek cooperative solutions. In a way, it would be reminiscent of the British Prime Minister’s regular visits to Parliament to discuss the issues of the day. Town Hall Meetings have been popular in recent U.S. elections, including races for Congress and the Presidency. Such meetings are critical to nominees as it allows them to get a pulse of what the voters are thinking and gives them some important feedback. If nothing else, Town Hall Meetings comfort the constituents that their voices are being heard; kind of a “feel good” session, although I would hope we could get something more substantial out of them, such as energizing the Craft. Interestingly, after a candidate has been elected, such meetings evaporate until the next election. Nonetheless, Town Hall Meetings give the constituents a rare opportunity to discuss the issues with their leaders. Frankly, I would rather see more Town Hall meetings regarding Freemasonry and less GM official visits as they are currently implemented. Whereas the former represents a bi-directional dialog, the latter represents a unidirectional form of communications and doesn’t encourage participation.

If Freemasonry is truly running like a fine tuned machine within a jurisdiction, Town Hall Meetings might not be necessary. They are only of service to allow the constituents to voice their concerns over the issues of the day. So, it comes down to this, “Do we believe everything is running properly in our Grand jurisdictions?” If we do, Town Hall Meetings are probably not necessary; if we do not, than it would be in the fraternity’s best interests to hold such meetings on a regularly scheduled basis.

Keep the Faith.

by W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
“A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry”
Originally printed on FmI in 2007.

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:

Article reprinted with permission of the author and www.FreemasonInformation.com, and please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.