Internal War: On Dickinson's "To fight aloud, is very brave"

To fight aloud, is very brave --
But gallanter, I know
Who charge within the bosom
The Cavalry of Woe --

Who win, and nations do not see --
Who fall -- and none observe --
Whose dying eyes, no Country
Regards with patriot love --

We trust, in plumed procession
For such, the Angels go --
Rank after Rank, with even feet --
And Uniforms of Snow.

-Emily Dickinson

*********************************

Dickinson begins with a statement: "To fight aloud, is very brave." This is intentionally ambiguous. Who are we fighting aloud with?: you can talk out loud to yourself all the time. Whether alone or with others, fighting aloud takes a bit of courage; anybody could hear us. What might they think?

However, according to Dickinson, it is "gallanter" to "charge within the bosom/The Cavalry of Woe." 'Gallantry' is some kind of 'etiquette,' for lack of a better term, that requires nobility. Hamlet considered "whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer." What is noble is a very, very complicated question. I get the sense that it is looking beyond yourself for the sake of something greater. But how does nobility fit in, then, when the only thing you are dealing with is yourself? Why would it be nobler for Hamlet or Dickinson to keep things in their mind, or in their bosom?

The best I can answer that question is that when you win an internal war, "nations do not see." When you fall, "none observe." Fighting valiantly with yourself is something "no Country/Regards with patriot love." The battle is not for honor, reputation, identity, or anything we get from somebody else. If we are going to actually fight ourselves, it requires deeper compulsion. The good we get out of it comes from something internal -- nobody else even cares if we do it. How many people go to AA or quit smoking because of other people? How many people do it by their own self-will? Who is stronger?

When you are fighting with yourself, you go through the world in a "plumed procession." You create some facade that says "hey, I am happy!" Even the Angels deal with their own internal war: Their "Uniforms of Snow" are beautiful, and their whiteness signifies purity. But snow is cold to the touch, not the eye. Putting on the angelic "Uniform" is a lot different than seeing it. The external tranquility covers some deep, ugly wounds.

If even the Angels "charge the Cavalry of Woe," my only conclusion is this: gallantry comes from the recognition that everyone has problems, and your wars are yours to fight - not somebody else's. Furthermore, it is noble to do this, because you don't burden somebody else for your own sake. Would you ask them to sacrifice their own war, just to help yours? Asking someone else to fight your war is a lot easier, and it also doesn't fix things completely: why else would psychologists get paid so much? a) People are willing to take the easy route and b) People keep coming back -- the conflict is unsettled.

Too often we 'help' by forgetting our own wars, and as a result victory comes to none.

Recent Thoughts on Obama: Individual vs Group

Recently, the Ashbrook Center put out a podcast between Drs. Schramm and Sikkenga talking about Obama's inaugural speech. Sikkenga was very thoughtful, as always, telling about how he concieves Obama's understanding of America.

As a man without a race, Obama essentially diverges with the Founders' belief in individual rights, because you cannot understand human beings outside of groups. He doesn't abandon Founding principles, but just thinks that they don't belong to each citizen by himself, rather they are 'our' rights.

It requires a knowledge of Obama's background to understand why -- the guy was essentially 'raceless' in his early life. Basically, Obama had to decide to be black. This kind of identity doesn't limit who somebody is, but is an essential part of who they are.

Obama is a very smart guy, and it sounds like his idea of America draws from a deep-seated philosophy of man. The new administration is ushering in not only policy change, but a change in American politics as we know it from Washington and Jefferson. Policy change is just sort of the icing on the cake. 'Fixing' the deeper meaning of politics - how to live well - is Obama's biggest task.

But haven't people lived well with absolutely nobody around them? Isn't solitude good? And aren't there deep differences between human beings collectively vs. individually? This may be completely wrong, but it all sounds a little like Rousseau - according to Obama, all of us together have a 'general will.' This isn't self-interest -- what's good for you or for me as individuals -- but what is good for America itself.

I really wish I was a lot better at political philosophy and could explain all of the implications of this, but God, it's sort of scary. Obama makes a lot of assumptions about mankind here -- these are serious considerations. We're not talking about something silly and meaningless like European socialism, but, and I'm stealing from Sikkenga, some 'wisdom' Obama has gotten about 'man' and wants to teach to all of us.

I'd really like to get some conversation going on this -- if any of you actually read here, take ten minutes and listen to Sikkenga's talk. Think about it for a while, and comment about what you think it means for our next 4 years.

"A legion of horribles:" On Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian and The Problem of Evil

A legion of horribles, hundreds in number, half naked or clad in costumes attic or biblical or wardrobed out of a fevered dream with the skins of animals and silk finery and pieces of uniform still tracked with the blood of prior owners, coats slain of dragoons, frogged and braided cavalry jackets, one in a stovepipe hat and one with an umbrella and one in white stockings and a bloodstained weddingveil and some in headgear of cranefeathers or rawhide helmets that bore the horns of buffalo and one in a pigeontailed coat worn backwards and otherwise naked and one in the armor of a spanish conquistador, the breastplate and pauldrons deeply dented with old blows of mace or sabre done in another country by men whose very bones were dust and many with their braids spliced up with the hair of other beasts until they trailed upon the ground and their horse's ears and tails worked with bits of brightly colored cloth and one whose horse's whole head was painted crimson red and all the horsemen's faces gaudy and grotesque with daubings like a company of mounted clowns, death hilarious, all howling in a barbarous tongue and riding down upon them like a horde from a hell more horrible yet than that brimstone land of christian reckoning, screeching and yammering and clothed in smoke like those vaporous beings in regions beyond right knowing where the eye wanders and the lip jerks and drools.

Oh my god said the sergeant.
-Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
************************************************************************************

Cormac McCarthy is lauded by some as the best living author for his work, such as Blood Meridian or the Evening Redness in the West and No Country for Old Men. He is known for his ability to weave both sparsity and intense detail into his books, but far more importantly McCarthy's ideas should somehow provoke the reader to think.

I know a lot of you guys were mad about the ending of No Country because Anton sort of got away; the only way he was hurt was by the freak chance that a car side-swiped him running a red light. It was clear all through the movie that Anton had absolutely no tempering influence and would even spit in the face of God were he able, but the fact that such evil could happen in our world raises questions.

What does this passage above say? Well, to put the whole thing in context, Blood Meridian takes place out in the lawless West theatre of the Mexican War. 'The kid' (BM's main character) has just been involuntarily placed in the service of a small irregular regiment on the American side, submerged in the hostile environment near the border.

There are basically no rules to speak of--they've all been thrown out the window. Violence is spurred by the subtlest acts, and spirals out of control ex nihilo. The Indians the band encounters are described best as barbaric and, to say the least, illiterate to the customs of polite civilization.

They kill without discrimination and do not generally know who they kill. In one scene, all of the cavalry receive their fates, given to them in Spanish from unidentified riders via Tarot cards. The combination of these two traits bases life on one thing simply: chance.

When one experiences a world like this, justice isn't really possible. That's why people usually get a little wary talking about things like Calvinist predestination (ie, how did people actually BELIEVE in this?!). Well, the thing is, piety depends on a just God who dispenses his will to the world. But religion gets a little bit tougher when surrounded by "vaporous beings from regions beyond right knowing where the eye wanders and the lip jerks and drools."

The irregulars are quaking with fear. They know a white flag doesn't stop their skin from being separated by a metal tool from their head. Providence to these people becomes a hilarious idea, which, if personally expressed, would probably result with the speaker mortally wounded (cf. the priest of Blood Meridian run out of town and murdered because he was an 'alleged' pedophile [which he wasn't]).

Therefore, any attempt to sanction the people of Blood Meridian with law or God becomes an impossibility; chaos is the only law, and it is as binding as gravity. Modern political science sort of labels this as the 'State of Nature,' but there is one problem with it: 'reason' is the law of the State of Nature. Therefore, this 'State' naturally ends because people will opt for the better idea of civility.

Yet Blood Meridian happens all the time: look at any odious regional mufti in the Middle East! By fiat the people are subject to terrible things and shared wisdom does not exist. People grow up around blood and guts as a way of life and think of each other as one man's chattel. How does Locke explain when people don't abandon this for something better? Is it as if small-time dictators have the resources or man-flesh the Brits did in 1776?

We like to think that these people's only grievance is the fact that they are depraved--that some money or food or comfort would remove the instinct to kill for the plain fact that they can kill. This is soothing because it makes them more 'normal' kinds of people, but they have already been pretty screwed up to the point that this becomes impossible: if God was gone then, what's he think he's doing coming back all of a sudden? How is that just? The evil springs from the brutal appetites of man that are as old as the Greeks themselves--and it makes life just that much more contemptible. Solving the problem becomes a contemporary version of Alexander the Great's Gordian Knot: you can't figure out how to logically untie everything, you just have to hack through it.

This Dust Was Once the Man: Lincoln Considered

This dust was once the man,
Gentle, plain, just and resolute, under whose cautious hand,
Against the foulest crime in history known in any land or
age,
Was saved the Union of these States.
-Whitman, on Lincoln

*****************************************************

It has been a trend in academia to argue over what Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War for. Yet in fact, Lincoln made it quite clear himself: "I would save the Union."

Whitman gets it right, though. The war simultaneously ended slavery and kept the Union together. One cannot understand Lincoln without also understanding why the fate of slavery was predicated by an intact Union, however.

In his letter to Horace Greeley of August 22, 1862, Lincoln says, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving other alone I would also do that."

An omitted sentence from the letter reads, "Broken eggs can never be mended, and the longer the breaking proceeds the more will be broken."

Wait -- this all sounds very confusing. Lincoln wished only to save the Union, and cared about slavery merely in the sense that it helped that cause? This letter has been the object of frustration for some, and vindication for others, depending on which side of the issue they stand regarding Lincoln's political thought.

But what did the Union mean to Lincoln? How did the Union even start? Lincoln felt that when Britain unclenched its fist from the colonies, it was only natural that the people had themselves declared independence. What implications does that idea have?

Government -- even state government -- had its power derived only from the single legitimate source of authority: the people. But how?

The idea of the Declaration of Independence is the only way to answer this fully and correctly. Accepting the Declaration's idea that 'all men are created equal' was not popular. In fact, many deemed it superfluous to the Declaration because it "wasn't necessary" to Jefferson's cause of claiming independence--that was Woodrow Wilson's treatment of it, anyway.

Others like Stephen Douglas declared the Declaration only applied to white property holders; this school felt the colonists were merely asserting their own rights to be political equals with citizens of England. Arguments were made against the Declaration on empirical as well as 'moral' grounds. What did Madison, Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson think about slavery? Most of the Founders had slaves! Wasn't it clear that all men, with their differing faculties, weren't equal?

They get it wrong: this has to do with origins. This has to do with history. I might argue it even has to do with religion. When we say men are created equal, we mean that they are all given by their Creator certain rights. They are natural rights, present even before government was around.


Other national documents, viz. the U.S. Constitution, were merely the "silver frame for the golden apple;" they were instruments for the greatest claim that the Union made. The truth is, without the Declaration, the Constitution was a pro-slavery document. However, the natural law inherent to the Declaration is what Lincoln argued to be our greatest law: it is our golden apple. The Union and slavery were definitively incompatible.

This is all really cool and interesting, but what does it tell us about Lincoln's original claim in his letter to Horace Greeley -- that he would "save the Union?"

It's simple: the death of the Union meant the death of the Declaration. The idea of 'all men created equal' would reside only in the memories of a few old men. Men who become dust.

Winston Churchill: Thought and Action

Winston Churchill is someone who took Life seriously. But are men split by two different paths toward a great Life?

“But now I pity undergraduates, when I see what frivolous lives many of them lead in the midst of precious fleeting opportunity. After all, a man’s Life must be nailed to a cross either of Thought or Action. Without work there is no play.”

Churchill has “pity” for undergraduates who waste their schooling; pity is different from disdain or holding anger. He actually has sympathy for them because he was once the same way – Churchill was often faced with academic probation and worse in his early education.

Later, Churchill talks about his own Republic, recalling Plato’s ideal society. If Churchill had it his way, only people who truly wanted to learn would be in school. ‘Life’ is not something to be taken lightly. Likewise, there is a difference between ‘thought’ and ‘Thought,’ as there is also a difference between ‘action’ and ‘Action.’

Socrates comments that justice might be something like “minding your own business.” In Plato’s dialogues like the Euthyphro, Socrates, as a thinker on the highest plane, can never really act out on his Thought. This explains why one must be “nailed to a cross” either of one or the other.

As political beings, we need utility, which is why Congress doesn’t merely think all day about what should be done, but tries to make a good decision. There are no Socratic figures in DC. However, we also don’t want a bunch of Oedipus types running around, who act without knowing what they are doing.

When Churchill liberated undeveloped British territories, he felt that he was shining light into a dark place; the civil British life was a gift, and it took Winston going into the breach to give it. This type of ‘Action’ was more meaningful than the technical trade employed by a mason or welder. I think Churchill sees the necessity for these kinds of people, but they just have to realize that there are higher things in life they could be doing.

The problem is deep ‘Thought’ is required to inform the decision to ‘Act.’ It’s not clear that we can have both, but Churchill seems to think he had done it.

More on this later...

Harriet Jacobs: Religion in the Slaveholding South

Religion formed an important part of Harriet Jacobs’ life, as seen in her Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, even though the institution tried to corrupt her piety. Also true of Frederick Douglass’ narrative, Southern plantation life contorted religion into something it is not: Jacobs’ early conception of piety is exactly the stuff of Tolkien’s Mordor, where Sauron’s handmaidens sketch their ‘innocence’ in comforting platitudes and with sophistry condemn the truly just and good.

It is interesting that slaves had religion at all. In Aristotle’s Politics, he says that religion requires a certain amount of luxury and ease to believe that ‘the good’ can be sought and maintained. It is hard to see why this is necessary, until modern philosophy developed the idea of nihilism; Nothingness as the only truth. Belief in Nothing comes from a tragic experience of life, and one can see why this could happen: imagine sharing love with your mother, who is suddenly whipped, has a bloodhound let loose on her and then is sold to another place far away. It is not difficult to imagine anybody living like this laughing outright at the concept of a caring God. In this world, love leads inevitably to suffering; the only way anybody does escape suffering is by chance (cf. Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil).

Religion has a hard time adequately addressing the idea of ‘chance,’ which is why the Calvinist’s predestination is difficult for modern people of more affluence (thus having less need to address chance) to understand. However, whatever myth somebody believes, it is more acceptable when one is on chance’s good side: through the early years of her life, Jacobs “was so fondly shielded that [she] never dreamed [she] was a piece of merchandise, trusted to [her owners] for safekeeping, and liable to be demanded of them at any moment” (281). Because Jacobs had a relatively good life in her youth, her grandmother was able to imbue a sense of morality and faith into her. It seems to be a general rule that most of the younger slaves in Jacobs’ narrative believed without apology in a just God: Jacobs relates the story of a mother beside her daughter (she was dying in labor with a child) told by her mistress, “Heaven! There is no such place for the like of [your daughter] and her bastard.” The girl replied, “Don’t grieve so, mother; God knows all about it; and HE will have mercy upon me” (287).

Although this girl of fifteen years believed God would save her, it seems terribly morbid she felt that salvation came only by death. On the plantation, most thought the justice of God only appeared in afterlife; it was hard to see Providence (“Who knows the ways of God?” says Jacobs’ grandmother [284]), and thus an otherworldly sanction became the only tether to faith. Piety and morality were capable of only the most devout since God’s work was literally nowhere to be seen.

This was true for mainly one reason. Religion was crafted by the ruling class to fully exclude blacks, and in fact to make blacks enemies with it. When her child was to be baptized, Jacobs says, “My grandmother belonged to the church; and she was very desirous of having the children christened. I knew Dr. Flint would forbid it, and I did not venture to attempt it” (295). Jacobs did end up baptizing the child after Dr. Flint went away for his medical practice, but this episode clearly shows how religion was discouraged among slaves; whites opposed black participation in religion on the ground that they were not good enough ‘things,’ let alone people.

Why this is important can be explained: in Plato’s Republic, Socrates discusses with Glaucon and Adeimantus the idea that the most moral person is the one who has the reputation in the polis as the most immoral, yet still seeks ‘the good;’ in the Christian story, Jesus was not exactly a rockstar everywhere he went – a lot of people hated him. Because it requires a tremendous beatitude to continue this sort of life, many abandon the castigating path of piety for lower standards. Conversely, says Plato, the most immoral are those who create a façade of morality while truly being wicked. In his Duke of Marlborough, Churchill writes of one such person, Louis XIV:

“No worse enemy of human freedom has ever appeared in the trappings of polite civilization. Insatiable appetite, cold, calculating ruthlessness, monumental conceit, presented themselves armed with fire and sword. The veneer of culture and good manners, of brilliant ceremonies and elaborate etiquette, only adds a heightening effect to the villainy of his life's story.”

For Churchill, the villainy is that ‘the bad’ was presented as ‘good.’ It helps to recall how appealing the snake appeared in Eden; his artificial ‘goodness’ was something Eve could not resist, and considering his true motives, this made the snake purely Satanic.

In Jacobs’ narrative, most people fall somewhere in between these two poles, except for Dr. Flint. He tried to sell Jacobs’ grandmother in private, saying it was out of respect for her, when it was truly to escape his own humiliation (285). In another case, Dr. Flint caped his dubious motives for trying to send Jacobs to an isolated living space as “trying to make a lady of [her]” (288). Since people like Dr. Flint were presented as moral beings to the community, a real problem arose for the religiosity of slaves, because (especially for those who could read Scripture like Jacobs) it contradicted the idea of God and justice: “…the condition of the slave confuses all principles of morality, and, in fact, renders the practice of them impossible” (291).

The simple fact of the matter is that civil life, where one could base what one saw on rationality, was far different than slave life, where passions drove decisions. Literally nothing that happened on the plantation made sense on any level: clouded rationality was itself what prevented whites from seeing blacks as political equals (cf. Peter C. Myers’ Our Only Star and Compass). Yet eventually, Jacobs became free and religion was restored to its righteous place in her life, as she concludes, “It does not require man’s praise to obtain rest in God’s kingdom” (315). But to come near that reality would be, recalling The Lord of the Rings, the same as believing the coarse, jarring bellow of Gandalf portending the ills of the Eye while Saruman sweetly expounds his affliction with a mellifluous tongue.

Was Benjamin Franklin a Self-Made Man?

Franklin is often looked to as the archetype of the 'American dream.' However, some would say that Franklin depended heavily upon an exclusive nexus and a fortunate pedigree to win his success. The following is part of a paper I did a while ago on Franklin (page numbers from The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin):

And yes, it's true that connections, a rigid honor code, the ipso facto reputations of a hypocritical, young class of gentlemen, domestic obligations, and money all hamstrung Franklin’s life. But republicanism shattered the idea of a hereditary basis for exclusion or inclusion into upper society. In Franklin’s stories, he revealed the “discovery that the thing [my emphasis] is in many a man’s private power.” Franklin’s ‘thing’ - inherent ability - allowed him to rise from low to high, and his connections to all facets of society show this.

In the opening pages of The Autobiography, Franklin explains how he “emerg’d from the Poverty & Obscurity in which [he] was born & bred, to a State of Affluence & some Degree of Reputation in the World…” (p. 27). However, his family was not exactly of the groveling, unlearned multitude. Franklin related that his uncle Thomas became a “Scrivener…a considerable Man in the County Affairs…” (p. 30). His mother was also of distinguished pedigree. Nevertheless, any fortunes in the colonies in general were paltry compared to those overseas. Even John Hancock’s inheritance and estate, one of the largest in New England, was laughable in London. Additionally, Franklin noted that the family and particularly his father seemed aware of “Decent Plainness & manly Freedom” (p. 32). Josiah Franklin, Benjamin’s father, moved to America in 1682. He was recognized for his outstanding virtues of prudence, and his “Judgment and Advice” (p. 34). Franklin had to prove his mettle before he was even allowed to consider the risky prospect of the newspaper industry. He was first hesitantly ushered into theological studies, but found his gift for argumentation and writing trumped what would have been a mostly self-centered religious education. In fact, Franklin shared a trait among countrymen that - if not entirely regional - was fittingly of the emerging American character. Booming, somewhat nomadic, populations poured in and out of urban centers seeking change, in what Tocqueville referred to as the Americans’ view of the volatile ‘State of Nature,’ broadly understood. Mobility was surely an impetus to equality as it disallowed long-enduring alliances and coalitions to develop.

Despite this adventure seeking and dynamic environment, family members such as Franklin’s older brother drew upon time-honored customs, often treating his smaller sibling as a servant. Their relationship suffered when Benjamin rose up and ‘threatened’ his brother’s success by finding his own (p. 44). The prospect of Benjamin’s success was a pill his brother simply could not swallow. The advent of Franklin's new success as a writer along with his edification in public services showed humility in word and deed. Franklin spurred new projects by printing journals and publications; but before this happened, Franklin ran these new ideas by some of his trusted colleagues, and projects had to first go through the gauntlet in his Junto’s deliberations, which tested the viability of such endeavors. However, Franklin did not advance self-aggrandizement, nor did the success or failure of the projects rely on his own name. He always cited the greater public good. For example, he insisted that a new education system was the work of “publick-spirited Gentlemen” (p. 125). His proposals did not carry a tone of condescension, as if they were the alms from an overseer to his pawn. Rather, Franklin appealed to fraternity and friendship. He made his own investment in the project seem modest and unimportant, or at least on an equal plane to everyone else. Through their own donation and efforts, it was up to individuals to collectively play a role in the internal improvements of the city.

Summing up Franklin’s ideas on improvements, it is appropriate to say that he understood the individual’s self-sufficiency and utility - even if ostensibly trivial - was better than gratuitous bestowals of material wealth. “Thus if you teach a poor young Man to shave himself and keep his Razor in order, you may contribute more to the Happiness of his Life than in giving him 1,000 Guineas. The money may soon be spent…But in the other case…he shaves when most convenient to him” (p. 134). Self-sufficiency would be widely understood as a vital element of the emerging nation. It would afford the common man freedom; but it is important to note that teaching is a required part of this process of liberation - one does not attain 'freedom' alone.

As for Franklin’s business affairs, he certainly was aided by the help of affluent and charitable men. Franklin could hardly fund passage to Pennsylvania, much less set up there, but not all those that Franklin encountered were generous or even honest. Printers generally had little education. Andrew Bradford and Keimer were described as such, the latter being “a good deal of a Knave in his composition” (p. 50). Besides having unsharpened faculties, these men lacked the integrity Franklin found important to business. While he worked slowly at finding a share in the market, he says:

“My old Competitor’s Newspaper declin’d proportionably…Thus He suffer’d greatly from his Neglect in due Accounting; and I mention it as a Lesson to those young Men who may be employ’d in managing Affairs for others that they should always render Accounts & make Remittances, with great Clearness and Punctuality.—The Character of observing Such a Conduct is the most powerful of all Recommendations to new Employments & Increase of Business” (p. 112).

In his Democracy in America, Tocqueville would later note that money was, notoriously, the American’s main ambition. It is interesting to see how money affected Franklin’s relationships, as it often strained them when one party fell on hard times. After Keimer rehired Franklin to help train new employees, the two had a falling out when the former, “being in the Street look’d up & saw [Franklin], called out to [him] in a loud and angry Tone to mind [his] Business…” (p. 71). This was not an isolated incident – it was the physical result of an extended period in which Keimer exerted undue psychological cruelty over Franklin. Immediately after this episode, Franklin quit.

In Franklin's relationships, there was surely an element of benevolence, pure charity, and camaraderie, but it cannot be denied that money soured even Franklin’s experience. Yet these occurrences should serve to verify Franklin’s credibility. In each case, the other party imploded as the result of their own abuse, fettering Franklin by threatening his finances and networking. These threats were made when Ralph and Keimer were pressured by repercussions of their own actions (namely, their pandering), having nothing to do with Franklin. Ironically, it did not take Franklin long to realize these tyrants were more dependent than Franklin himself. Of bullies, this is always true. Thus he overcame dubious business arrangements and friction in personal relationships by keeping his honor and scruples intact.

Franklin never supposed himself to be inherently better than Ralph or Keimer, or in fact anyone. By expressing himself in a meek fashion he entered the realm of high politics and found success—he was seen moderate and just. Franklin relates how shedding light on a political enemy’s self-worth helped his own cause after he asked him for help in some task: “He that has once done you a Kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself have obliged” (p. 112). Paternalism was ill received. It supposed that one party was superior and granted the other favors they could not accomplish alone. Status in society depended on the trust and fondness of others toward oneself bred by union - not authority. In his talk of Mr. Morris, the new governor from England, he says:

“He had some Reason for loving to dispute, being eloquent, an acute Sophister, and therefore generally successful in argumentative Conversation…But I think the Practice was not wise, for in the Course of my Observation, these disputing, contradicting & confuting People are generally unfortunate in their Affairs. They get victory sometimes, but they never get Good Will, which would be of more use to them” (p. 137).


From these relationships, and by Franklin’s reflection upon them, one can see that his success largely hinged on how others perceived him, but this does not mean that he was not self-made. His life was always open to civic audit, and as such, rested on the qualities of accountability, integrity, and diligence. The fragility of reputation in the colonies may have dictated some of Franklin’s actions and made him dependent on others, but it was not dependence in its old sense. This dependence was reciprocal and fraternal — not unrequited and feudal. To clarify, ‘rich’ men who are not self-made do not deserve their wealth. They are bred into it; it belongs to them only because of who they are, and not because of what they can do. To be sure, hereditary wealth does furnish cultured men with a bearing for literature, science and the arts. But this wisdom has an egocentric purpose, as if grasping the nuances of Athenian Greek tragedies, skilled discussion of Baroque influence on architecture, or naming Michelangelo’s works chronologically is in itself virtue. In quite the reverse, the self-made man’s knowledge is only important insofar as it advances his judgment, insight, and will to beautify and illuminate others — just as his education, and thus his virtue, has done for him. It may be true that Franklin had some vanity, but far more importantly, he shared his acumen when the Spanish grandees, English aristocracy, French lords, Chinese literati or Russian landowners would not have.