Two hundred and thirty years ago, a promising experiment in self-rule died in its infancy. The United States of America was already in serious trouble when delegates from twelve of the thirteen former colonies met to hammer out a solution to the Articles of Confederation, a government contract so weak and ineffective that it never actually rose to the level of government. They came to the table with the greatest determination to create a new government that would allow the states to act as one and to stand strong against foreign invaders as well as internal rebellions.
But talks quickly stalled over an insurmountable obstacle: Slavery. The northern delegates were themselves divided over the issue, but those who opposed it were adamant that slavery could have no part in a nation founded on the principles of liberty and equality. The south was equally intractable. They not only demanded that their slaves be counted as part of the population when it came to apportioning representatives, but they also demanded the institution be enshrined in the new document, setting forth that no embargo be placed on the importation of more slaves, and that no state have the power to outlaw the practice within its own boundaries.
The angry men argued though the stifling summer of 1787 and into the fall, and at the first snow, they gave up and went home. Though no one would admit it at the time, the Great Experiment had already failed. Civil unrest and border clashes broke out with the spring, and the government had no way to stop them. Indeed, the southern states had pretty much left the union, having signed a separate confederation pact. Within two years, they were down to twelve states, after Massachusetts invaded and forcibly annexed tiny Rhode Island. A call for help to Connecticut, New York and New Hampshire went unheeded. After all, as one bitter governor said, the Island’s failure to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention implied they wanted to go it alone, so by all means….Besides, New England needed Massachusetts to counter a more serious threat: The southern states were threatening war over a series of ruinous tariffs on cotton and tobacco.
It all ended anti-climatically with the return of ships and troops from Great Britain. They’d been invited by the legislatures of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland. (Delaware wasn’t even asked.) Pragmatic minds had seen that it wasn’t working, and the middle states certainly didn’t want the armies of the north and the south tramping through their wheat fields. Capitulation quickly followed. England was wisely merciful and promised there would be no hangings, thus eliminating one key reason to resist. There were onerous fines and imprisonments, and all Tory lands had to be restored to the loyalists, but it was generally a bloodless and even welcome coup. The supposedly United States of America disbanded, and the forever divided colonies went back to being Great Britain’s cash cow.
No, that didn’t actually happen, but it might have if the delegates of the Constitutional Convention hadn’t employed a saving measure called compromise. The south got the “three-fifths” clause: Counting slaves as three-fifths of a man–giving them more congressional representatives than they deserved but not as many as they wanted. The north got the promise that the import of slaves from Africa or the West Indies could be abolished after twenty years. And everybody got the Constitution, an imperfect but improvable document that set up a strong federal government with checks and balances to prevent the return of tyranny, while still having the power to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Compromise is not a dirty word. It is not capitulation or surrender. It is an acknowledgment that we are many, and we must learn to live together. Compromise is what gave us our nation, and the inability to compromise is threatening to tear it apart. There are too many people who absolutely refuse to move one step from their entrenched positions. It’s become “my way or the highway, and the rest of you be damned!”
Nowhere is this more obvious than the subject of gun control, and most of the intransigence lies squarely in the corner occupied by the NRA. The gun lobby will not move an inch on anything, no matter how many people get killed. They seem to have this paranoid fear that the slightest conciliation will lead to a police state in which all weapons are confiscated. Their fear of the slippery slope is so severe that they believe a decline of a single degree will trigger an avalanche. If gravity were that strong, Earth would have crashed into the sun before we evolved.
I have moved in liberal circles most of my life, and in all those years, everyone I talked to agreed that people have a right to hunt, and to defend themselves and others against criminals. (Of course, I don’t personally know retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who just proposed an amendment repealing the Second Amendment, but that’s not going to happen. It would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress and the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. The last time we liberals tried, we couldn’t even get a milquetoast equal rights amendment through that gantlet.)
Getting back from that annoying blip in the controversy, nobody I have ever talked to, including the much-maligned Democrats, wants to repeal the Second Amendment. We just want a more reasonable interpretation that takes into account the entire amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What part of Nikolas Cruz spraying classrooms with an AR-15 adds up to a “well regulated Militia?”
The movement spawned by the recent murders in Parkland is looking for something much less draconian than repeal:
- Ban military assault weapons. These belong in a warzone, and nobody in their right mind wants to live in a warzone.
- Ban the sale of high capacity magazines that allow the shooter to spit out 30 to 45 rounds a minute.
- Close the loopholes in background checks that allow lunatics and sociopaths to obtain weapons. This means including gun shows and online sales in background checks, making sure the data is collected so the checks actually mean something, and funding the staff needed to do the job in a timely fashion.
In other words, Stop making it so easy to kill so many in so short a time.
Is that really a step too far? I suggest the NRA start learning to edge forward. The gun lovers are a minority which have managed to dominate the rest of society because they are very committed and they vote. That’s our fault. One-third of the electorate can override the majority if over half of that majority stays home on election day. But that can change. With each senseless death, you get that many more angry survivors, and we may be nearing the tipping point. The March for Our Lives drew 200,000 protesters to Washington, DC, and hundreds of thousands more at 800 sibling marches around the United States and the world. If the momentum continues and turns into votes, the bought-and-paid-for politicians might be out the door, replaced by activists eager for real reform.
Instead of being yanked further to the left than even I want to go, let’s begin now to do what our founding fathers did when they were getting our nation started: Compromise!