October 18, 2025

5 thoughts on “History Notes: This week of June 10th

  1. Cheers for Daniel Ellsberg’s courage and sense of patriotism from this veteran of that ******-up misadventure known as the VEET NAM war.

    As to Arthur Sulzberger’s judgment that “I just didn’t feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy,” how true that is, since the “enemy,” who we had been arming and supporting during WWII, probably knew more about what was going on in that war than either the White House or Pentagon ever did.

  2. Les Paul was an inspiration to me as a fledgling musician/disabled veteran for this reason – in January 1948, Paul shattered his right arm and elbow in a near-fatal automobile accident on an icy Route 66 west of Davenport, Oklahoma.

    Mary Ford, his wife, was driving the Buick convertible, which plunged off the side of a railroad overpass and dropped twenty feet into a ravine when they were returning from Wisconsin to Los Angeles after visiting family.

    Doctors at Oklahoma City’s Wesley Presbyterian Hospital told Paul that they could not rebuild his elbow.

    Their other option was amputation.

    Paul was flown to Los Angeles, where his arm was set at an angle—just under 90 degrees—that allowed him to cradle and pick the guitar.

    It took him nearly a year and a half to recover.

    end quotes

    It was the fact that he was able to recover from that, that was such an inspiration to me to keep on persevering.

    RIP, Les Paul.

  3. With respect to the Magna Carta, the 64-article “Great Charter” which was the first royal acknowledgment that the king in England was subject to the rule of law rather than divine right, laying the foundation for the revolution in civil governance that gave us English Common Law, it is still questionable in my mind, anyway, what role that document played with respect to the Constitution of the United States.

    Consider “Alfredus” by Samuel Tenny of New Hampshire, for example, on January 18, 1788, in Freeman’s Oracle, on the subject of whether the new Constitution should be ratified or not:

    “Mr. President (of New Hampshire Constitutional Convention), We are repeatedly called upon to give some reason why a bill of rights has not been annexed to the proposed plan.”

    “I not only think that enquiry is at this time unnecessary and out of order, but I expect, at least, that those who desire us to shew why it was omitted will furnish some arguments to shew that it ought to have been inserted; for the proof of the affirmative naturally falls upon them.”

    “But the truth is, Sir, that this circumstance, which has since occasioned so much clamour and debate, never struck the mind of any member in the late convention until, I believe, within three days of the dissolution of that body, and even then, of so little account was the idea, that it passed off in a short conversation, without introducing a formal debate, or assuming the shape of a motion.”

    “For, Sir, the attempt to have thrown into the national scale an instrument in order to evince that any power not mentioned in the constitution was reserved, would have been formed as an insult to the common understanding of mankind.”

    “In civil governments it is certain, that bills of rights are unnecessary and useless, nor can I conceive whence the contrary notion has arisen.”

    “Virginia has no bill of rights, and will it be said that her constitution was the less free?”

    “Has South Carolina no security for her liberties?”

    “That state has no bill of rights.”

    “Are the citizens of Delaware more secured in their freedom, or more enlightened in the subjects of government than the citizens of Maryland?”

    “New-Jersey has no bill of rights; New-York has none; and Rhode Island has none.”

    “Thus, Sir, it appears from the sample of other states, as well as from principle that a bill of rights is neither essential nor a necessary instrument in forming a system of government, since liberty may exist and be as well secured without it.”

    “But it was not only unnecessary, but on this occasion, it was found impracticable; for who will be bold enough to undertake to enumerate all the rights of the people?”

    “And when the attempt to enumerate them is made, it will be remembered that if the enumeration is not complete, every thing not expressly mentioned will be presumed to be purposely omitted.”

    “So it must be with a bill of rights, and an omission in stating the powers granted to the government, is not so dangerous as an omission in recapitulating the rights reserved by the people.”

    “We have already seen the reign of magna charta, and tracing the subject still further we find the petition of rights claiming the liberties of the people, according to the laws and statutes of the realm, of which the great charter was, the most material; so that here again recourse is had to the old source from which their liberties are derived, the grant of the king.”

    “It was not until the revolution that the subject was placed upon a different footing, and even then the people did not claim their liberties as an inherent right, but as the result of an original contract between them and the sovereign.”

    “Thus, Mr. President, an attention to the situation of England will shew that the conduct of that country in respect to bills of rights, cannot furnish an example to the inhabitants of the United States, who by the revolution have regained all their natural rights, and possess their liberty neither by grant nor contract.”

    end quotes

    And then there is “A Democratic Federalist” by Tench Coxe in the Independent Gazetteer on November 26, 1787, to wit:

    The executive powers of the Union are separated in a higher degree from the legislative than in any government now existing in the world.

    As a check upon the President, the Senate may disapprove of the officers he appoints, but no person holding any office under the United States can be a member of the federal legislature.

    How differently are things circumstanced in the two houses in Britain where any officer of any kind, naval, military, civil or ecclesiastical, may hold a seat in either house.

    This is a most enlightened time, but more especially so in regard to matters of government.

    The divine right of kings, the force of ecclesiastical obligations in civil affairs, and many other gross errors, under which our forefathers have lain in darker ages of the world, are now done away.

    The natural, indefeasible and unalienable rights of mankind form the more eligible ground on which we now stand.

    The United States are in this respect “the favored of Heaven.”

    The Magna Charta, Bill of Rights, and common law of England furnished in 1776 a great part of the materials out of which were formed our several state constitutions.

    All these were more or less recognized in the old Articles of Confederation.

    On this solid basis is reared the fabric of our new federal government.

    These taken together form THE GREAT WHOLE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, the fairest fabric of liberty that ever blessed mankind, immovably founded on a solid rock, whose mighty base is laid at the center of the earth.

    end quotes

    And “A Freeman I” by A Freeman in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Philadelphia, on January 23, 1788:

    When the people of America dissolved their connexion with the crown of Britain, they found themselves separated from all the world, but a few powerless colonies, the principal of which indeed they expected to induce into their measures.

    The crown having been merely a centre of union, the act of independence dissolved the political ties that had formerly existed among the states, and it was attended with no absolute confederacy; but many circumstances conspired to render some new form of connexion desirable and necessary.

    The remains of our ancient governments kept us in the form of thirteen political bodies, and from a variety of just and prudent considerations, we determined to enter into an indissoluble and perpetual union.

    end quotes

    Certainly, Magna Carta played some role in terms of our nascent political philosophy in this nation, but how big a role that was remains a subject of debate.

  4. With respect to any role Magna Carta might have played with respect to ,our federal Constitution, in FEDERALIST No. 84, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered, from McLEAN’s Edition, New York to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton, further mention of Magna Carta is made as follows:

    IN THE course of the foregoing review of the Constitution, I have taken notice of, and endeavored to answer most of the objections which have appeared against it.

    There, however, remain a few which either did not fall naturally under any particular head or were forgotten in their proper places.

    These shall now be discussed; but as the subject has been drawn into great length, I shall so far consult brevity as to comprise all my observations on these miscellaneous points in a single paper.

    The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights.

    It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.

    Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John.

    Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes.

    Such was the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign.

    Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights.

    It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants.

    Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.

    “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

  5. As to Saipan, that is a word that goes back to my earliest days, as the National Guard unit from my area was also involved in that battle, along with the Marines, so as a youth, I was surrounded by survivors of the Japanese Banzai attack which took place on that island, and resulted in the Army troops being branded as cowards by the Marines.

    This article from the Richmond Times-Dispatch “Survivors recall Saipan attack – Army vs. Marine rift festered after WWII battle” by The Associated Press on July 7, 2014 recounts what transpired there as follows:

    SARATOGA SPRINGS, N.Y. — Even after seven decades, Wilfred “Spike” Mailloux won’t talk about surviving a bloody World War II battle unless longtime friend John Sidur is by his side.

    It was Sidur who found the severely wounded Mailloux hours after both survived Japan’s largest mass suicide attack in the Pacific.

    The predawn assault launched 70 years ago today on the Japan-held island of Saipan nearly wiped out two former New York National Guard battalions fighting alongside U.S. Marines.

    “He found me in the mud,” Mailloux recalled during a visit to the New York State Military Museum on the battle’s 70th anniversary.

    Mailloux and Sidur are among the dwindling ranks of WWII veterans of the Army’s 27th Infantry Division, which endured some of the bloodiest fighting in the Pacific, only to have its reputation besmirched by a Marine general in one of the war’s biggest controversies.

    In the Mariana Islands, 1,400 miles south of Tokyo, Saipan was sought by the Americans as a base for bombing raids against Japan.

    U.S. forces landed on Saipan on June 15, 1944, with two Marine divisions, the 2nd and the 4th, making the first beach assaults and losing some 2,000 men on the first day alone.

    A few days later, the inexperienced 27th Division joined the fight.

    A New York National Guard outfit activated in October 1940, the “Appleknockers” retained a sizable Empire State contingent among its ranks after two years of garrison duty in Hawaii.

    Marine Lt. Gen. Holland M. Smith, dubbed “Howling Mad,” was commander of the ground forces at Saipan.

    A week into the battle, he relieved the 27th’s commander, Maj. Gen. Ralph Smith (no relation), after the division lagged behind the Marines operating on its flanks.

    Holland Smith blasted the 27th’s leadership and criticized its soldiers in front of war correspondents, who later reported on the rift that became known as “Smith vs. Smith.”

    Arthur Robinson, 92, of Saratoga Springs knew nothing of the flap brewing on Saipan.

    As an infantryman in the 27th’s 105th Infantry Regiment, he was concentrating on staying alive.

    On July 3, he was wounded by machinegun fire and endured a 10-mile ride in a Jeep to a field hospital, with the driver opting to travel on railroad tracks because the road was mined.

    On July 7, after three weeks of fighting, two battalions of the 105th Regiment were positioned across a plain along Saipan’s western shore.

    With the island’s 30,000 defenders down to a few thousand starving, ill-equipped soldiers and sailors, Japanese commanders ordered one last charge.

    The battalions’ 1,100 soldiers bore the brunt of what became known as the banzai attack.

    U.S. military officials later said 3,000 Japanese charged the American lines, though others put the estimate closer to 5,000.

    “I was scared as hell,” said Mailloux, then a 20- year-old corporal from Cohoes, a mill town north of Albany.

    “When you hear that screaming — ‘banzai’ — who wouldn’t be?”

    The 105th’s positions were overrun.

    The Americans set up a second perimeter and fought for hours before the attackers were all but annihilated.

    When it was over, some 4,300 enemy dead were found on the battlefield.

    The regiment saw 406 killed and 512 wounded.

    More than 3,000 Americans died in the land battle for Saipan, about a third of them 27th Division soldiers.

    Holland Smith declared Saipan secure on July 9.

    https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=h9YoW9usOojv5gKh87bYCQ&q=appleknockers+on+saipan&oq=appleknockers+on+saipan&gs_l=psy-ab.3…1612.9120.0.10449.23.18.0.5.5.0.121.1744.14j4.18.0….0…1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.21.1609…0j0i131k1j0i10k1j33i160k1j0i22i30k1.0.kXtpADhKeGA

    Two of those “Appleknockers” were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *