• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

James M. Redwine

  • Books
  • Columns
  • 1878 Lynchings/Pogrom
  • Events
  • About

John Adams

Hell Hath No Fury!

August 29, 2024 by Peg Leave a Comment

Abigail Adams (1744-1818) was the wife of our second president, John Adams, and the mother of our sixth, John Quincy Adams. She wielded great influence over both but could not secure for women the right to vote. Her effort in the cause of female rights is exemplified by the following excerpt from one of her numerous letters to John while he was deeply involved in the Continental Congress:

“- I long to hear that you have declared an independency [from Great Britain] – and by the way in the new Code of Laws [The Declaration of Independence and new Articles of the Confederation] which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice or Representation.” (April 1776) 

A mere 144 years later most American women who were twenty-one years or older got the right to vote when the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. However, in the meantime there was hell to pay for a lot of people who forgot the aphorism, “Hell Hath No Fury Like Women Scorned!” (from a 1697 English play by William Congreve, 1670-1729). Perhaps John Adams and his fellow Founding Fathers, they were all men at the Continental Convention, should have listened. Perhaps they might have saved the United States 144 years of angst and saved themselves many nights on the couch.

It is not as if women, and a lot of men too, were not struggling mightily for many years to give females equality. Such courageous heroines as Dolly Madison (1768-1849), Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) and Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) were marching lecturing, writing and enduring social, political and even physical danger in the cause of female suffrage. And in my own family my grandmother, who had no right to vote until she was well beyond 21, instilled in my mother, who well remembered when women could not vote, the debt she and other women owed to those pioneers. The best way to repay it was to exercise their dearly bought franchise. My 87-year-old sister Janie was imbued with this burning ardor as is my wife, Peg, who is not 87 but whose dearly departed mother lit that same flame in her.

My sister is a testament to how sacred many women, and many men also, hold the right to vote. Janie has been diagnosed with a slowly progressing but debilitating illness that many would have called uncle to before now. However, I am confident nothing will prevent her from participating in an election that might result in our first female president. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote that I bet included Janie’s. But she and her distaff cohorts now have another chance. I have no doubt my beloved, and committed sister will make it to November 05 and, hopefully well beyond, the medical folks are of the opinion that they have no opinion. “It will be what it will be”, they say.

I think it may turn out that Peg’s mother, my mother and even our grandmothers and great grandmothers, all of whom have gone onto their rewards, may find some way to join Janie and Peg at the polls November 05, 2024, only 248 years after Abigail’s entreaty to John. Of course, many will exercise their rights in support of their contemporary female hopefuls but many women will vote for men on the ticket. And many men will freely vote for the fairer sex but will also support the men on the ballots.

In other words, gender will no longer be, and should never have been, a determining factor in either choosing a candidate or having the right to make such a choice. Congratulations to all of us for no longer basing our vital political selections on sex, no matter what that designation may be. Abigail should be beaming wherever she is.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Elections, Gavel Gamut, Gender, Women's Rights Tagged With: 19th Amendment, Abigail Adams, Dolly Madison, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Hell Hath No Fury Like Women Scorned, Hillary Clinton, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Kamala Harris, Peg, Sister Janie, Susan B. Anthony, William Congreve, women's right to vote

Independence Day Jeopardy

July 12, 2024 by Peg Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine.

John Adams, our second president, and Thomas Jefferson, our third president, were great friends who became estranged for years but reconciled before they both died on July 4, 1826. Each was an attorney who championed individual liberty and civil rights. Adams believed the date of America’s birth was July 2, 1776, the date the Continental Congress voted for independence. Jefferson thought our birthday was July 4, 1776, the date the Declaration of Independence was signed. Both Founding Fathers declared we should celebrate our founding with special activities.

Jefferson was the first president to host a July 4 commemoration at the White House. Jefferson wrote about Independence Day, “For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”

Adams sent a letter to his wife Abigail on July 3, 1776 in which he declaimed:

“I am apt to believe that it (July 2, 1776) will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival.

…

It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews (shows), Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illumination from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

My family, and most likely yours too Gentle Reader, have carried out these patriotic demands for as long as we have been fortunate enough to do so. For more than the past twenty years my family has gathered around July 4 and reveled in the wonder of the United States of America by engaging in a hotly contested Independence Jeopardy game.

Photo by Peg Redwine

This year our son Jim portrayed Benjamin Franklin, my nephews Dennis and David Redwine, donned the colonial frocks of Uncle Sam and George Washington and teams of relatives vied to earn the Independence Day Jeopardy championship. The competition was fierce and only barbeque and copious desserts could assuage those who came in out of first.

It is always good to get our large and close-knit family together, especially over a hotly contested game of colonial history. It is of special meaning in our current atmosphere of political upheaval to remind ourselves what truly matters. So, happy birthday to all of us whether you agree with Adams or Jefferson or choose some other special time around our founding in the first week of July, 1776.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Events, Family, Friends, Gavel Gamut, JPeg Osage Ranch, Patriotism Tagged With: 4th of July, America, Benjamin Franklin, Continental Congress, Gentle Reader, George Washington, Independence Day, James M. Redwine, Jeopardy, Jim Redwine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Uncle Sam

Legal Slight of Hand

October 25, 2019 by Peg Leave a Comment

After last week’s scintillating column on Constitutional Law I know you are eagerly awaiting promised round two on politics and the United States Supreme Court. Of course, America’s judiciary eschews any notion that court outcomes are sometimes a product of the political views of the judge or judges who decide the cases. At the National Judicial College where I have served as a part-time faculty member since 1995 one of the guiding principles is the effort to have completely impartial judging of all cases. That is a proper goal. However, is that goal always achieved? Let’s take a look behind the black robes of history starting with America’s most famous case, Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803 a mere sixteen years after the end of the Constitutional Convention that occurred on September 17, 1787.

You may recall that last week we had sought guidance on understanding the U.S. Constitution from law professor Michael Klarman who spoke to the Indiana Graduate Judges Seminar in French Lick, Indiana in June 2019. In his book The Framers’ Coup, The Making of the United States Constitution, Professor Klarman gave an in-depth analysis of the political warfare that produced our Constitution. A similar phenomenon occurred when the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Marshall, blatantly grabbed for the U.S. Supreme Court the immense power to declare whether a particular law was constitutional. Marshall deftly, and unethically, used the virulent hatred between those early Americans who favored a strong central government, the Federalists, and the anti-Federalists who preferred a more citizen-centered national government. John Adams was our second president and he was one of the strongest proponents of a strong central government. Adams was defeated in an election by our third president Thomas Jefferson in a bitterly fought campaign. John Marshall served as Adams’ Secretary of State and Marshall and Jefferson despised one another. Just before Adams’ term as president ran out he appointed John Marshall to be Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marshall was succeeded as Secretary of State by James Madison who, incidentally, later became our fourth president.

Just before John Adams left office he also appointed numerous judges and justices of the peace as a sharp stick in the eye of the incoming president Thomas Jefferson. William Marbury, a wealthy businessman and vocal opponent of Jefferson, was one of Adams’ justice of the peace appointees. While Secretary of State, John Marshall had the duty of signing Marbury’s certificate of appointment and delivering it to Congress. Marshall failed to get that done and the task was left to new Secretary of State James Madison. But President Jefferson, who was angry at John Adams for the last minute appointments, ordered Madison to not deliver Marbury’s certificate. Marbury then filed a law suit in the Supreme Court seeking to have the Court order Madison to give Marbury the certificate of appointment.

If all this intrigue seems rather petty and even perhaps reminiscent of our current political climate involving nasty actions on all sides, well, the pettiness turned out to have a momentous affect on every court case in America after 1803. The squabble may have resembled a tempest in a teapot but Chief Justice John Marshall’s highly political decision in the case resulted in a federal judiciary of immense power, a power not contemplated by many of our Founders and Framers of our Constitution.

Because of his earlier direct connection to Marbury’s appointment John Marshall should have recused himself from the case and should have had no part in it. However, Marshall seized upon Thomas Jefferson’s hatred of John Adams to trade what Jefferson wanted, that is to prevent Adams’ last minute appointments, for a huge leap toward a strong centralized government where the Judicial Branch would have power over decisions of both the Legislative and Executive Branches’ decisions.

What John Marshall and two more members of the then five member Supreme Court decided was that the legislative act that purported to give jurisdiction over cases such as the one brought by Marbury violated the Constitution therefore the Supreme Court had no authority to order Madison to give Marbury his certificate. It might appear to have been a win for Jefferson over Adams, but it was the ultimate Pyrrhic victory as Marshall and all future courts used it as a nuclear weapon in the war between the Federalists and anti-Federalists. Supreme power over what the Constitution meant has resided in the Supreme Court ever since 1803.

For example, in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Chief Justice Roger Taney, a former slave owner, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Negro slaves had no rights that the Constitution was bound to protect. Then in George Bush v. Al Gore (2000) a bitterly divided court led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist who had been appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon to be an associate justice then by Republican President Ronald Reagan to be Chief Justice handed the presidential election to Republican George Bush.

So, as America’s judiciary proclaims it must remain independent from outside influences and look only to the law and the facts, it might appear to some cynics that the blindfold often slips. Anyway, I am certain you probably feel the same sense of relief in finishing this column that I did in finishing law school and Professor Klarman’s book. On the bright side however, the rest of your day is bound to get better.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Elections, Gavel Gamut, Judicial Tagged With: anti-Federalists, Constitutional Law, Dred Scott v. Sandford, Federalists, George Bush v. Al Gore, impartial judging, Indiana Graduate Judges, James M. Redwine, James Madison, Jim Redwine, John Adams, John Marshall, justice of the peace, Marbury v. Madison, Michael Klarman, National Judicial College, Richard Nixon, Roger Taney, Ronald Reagan, The Framers’ Coup the Making of the United States Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Supreme Court, William Marbury

Not So Bad After All

May 31, 2019 by Peg Leave a Comment

As our country nears its 243rd birthday we Americans may feel as if all is gloom and doom. Members of Congress are calling for the impeachment of President Trump. President Trump is tweeting out claims that some Congress people are traitors. CNN accuses FOX News of being a sycophant for the White House. Rush Limbaugh proclaims CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post are not news agencies but simply “fake news” whose agendas have a single minded mission to remove the President from office.

At coffee shops and taverns throughout the United States one-time friends cannot carry on a respectful conversation. Even churches are choosing sides. In short, the last election drags into its third year and the next election is morphing into a mere continuation of the election past. Political pundits and politicians are donning sackcloth and ashes or arming themselves with skewers to assassinate the characters of those who have the temerity to disagree with them. It ain’t good, folks. Are we falling apart?

No! We are practicing the democracy bequeathed to us on July 04, 1776. A healthy lack of respect for the opinions of others is our birthright. As long as we simply “suffer the slings and arrows” and do not “take up arms to oppose them” it is all as clanging brass and hollow threats. In fact, our current political climate is about the same as it has been since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who both signed the Declaration of Independence, saw their close friendship dissolve over policy differences. It is America. We have the right, perhaps the duty, to voice our disagreements.

What we do not want to lose sight of is policy differences are important but should not be lethal. Maybe we should step back, take a deep breath and see how another country, North Korea for example, handles allegations of treason.

We do not know the facts and should be cautious of reports from either North Korea or other countries that may wish to harm North Korea. With that said, it has been “reported” that Kim Jong Un of North Korea was upset over the failed summit between Kim and President Trump to the point he imprisoned some of his negotiators and executed several others. He allegedly declared them traitors. Even if these reports are exaggerated, the contrast between America’s hyperbole and North Korea’s drastic actions should remind us of what the Fourth of July truly means.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp

Like this:

Like Loading...

Filed Under: America, Democracy, Elections, Gavel Gamut, North Korea Tagged With: America, CNN, Congress, democracy, fake news, Fox News, impeachment, James M. Redwine, Jim Redwine, John Adams, July 04 1776, Kim Jong-un, MSNBC, North Korea, policy differences, President Trump, right to voice disagreements, Rush Limbaugh, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Thomas Jefferson, traitors executed, traitors imprisoned, White House

© 2025 James M. Redwine

 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d