Cordially,

Jacqueline Teal, Regent
John Houstoun Chapter
Daughters of the American Revolution

I must say it’s not any review, but only a summary of the book, with limited to no thinking…

As a summary, it’s a fair one – although occasionally missing the main message (e.g., on Clausewitz: the reviewer may have not seen what the Gat’s demonstration was about).

The reviewer may also check whether the preface ambition – “a panoramic but clearly-focused view of the wider conceptions of war, strategy, and military theory which have dominated Europe and the West from the eighteenth century to our ‘post-modern’ era” – has been utterly achieved. If one steps back a bit, one can only see that the 20th century part is fragmentary at best, even if this fragment is still of great value.

I reprinted this article, giving you credit, but the wonderfully weird thing is what I read in your bio at the top of this page: you are the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers,” a book I have been reading for the past three days! Greatly enjoying the book, and wowed at the synchronicity of the Mencken quote and your authorship. Now I will retire to my gazebo in the back yard for a cigar and continued reading of your writing.

Stogie

Dear Prof. McClanahan,

First, I wish to convey to you how much I enjoyed reading your three publications: Forgotten Conservatives in American History (2012), The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution (2012), and The PIG to the Founding Fathers (2009). They were read in the sequence listed above a little over a month ago. They are a welcome and necessary antidote to the rubbish opined daily in the “official” press and over the airwaves.

Interestingly, I happened upon your work in Chronicles magazine awhile back. What initially caught my attention was the advertisement that Dr. Clyde Wilson had co-authored your latest book. Over the past 8 or so years I’ve read nearly everything Dr. Wilson has published (excepting his multi-volume J. Calhoun collection and his newest collection, that of John Taylor of Caroline) and his observations and commentary on all matters are honest, sound, and convincing. He consistently goes against the grain (zeitgeist) and, as I see it, he refuses to bow to fad, “court” history, or reigning pieties. Also, I learned that you were Dr. Wilson’s last doctoral candidate; that sealed it for me, and I proceeded to purchase your publications. I haven’t been disappointed. Dr. Wilson, yourself, and select others are filling a role for the remnant of our day that the “old right” master, Albert Jay Nock, in a beautifully articulate 1936 essay, “Isaiah’s Job,” filled in his.

A second reason for contacting you was something I discovered while reading Robert Douthat Meade’s (2 vol.) Patrick Henry. I completed the second and final volume last week. (An older study, I nonetheless doubt a fuller and more scholarly work – Meade’s voluminous list of sources and his far-ranging travels in search of records is impressive – on Patrick Henry and his place in our history is available.) Now, this discovery would have meant nothing to me except that I started Meade’s volumes nearly on the heels of completing your 3 books. Here’s what I found:

1. “Already one of his [PH’s] sisters had married a Scotch McClanahan, of a prominent Augusta family…” [v.I – p.233; see ftne. 36, p.401, for source information]

2. “One of his [PH’s] officers, doubtless disappointed not to be present for the fighting, was Captain Alexander McClanahan, brother-in-law of Henry’s ill wife. Less than thirty years before, when Augusta Court had lately been opened at Staunton, Alexander’s father, Robert McClanahan, had obtained a license to keep an ordinary, the log cabin hostelry just opposite the courthouse … [a large section on hostelries of the time follows[ … The ordinary keeper of the 1740’s, Robert McClanahan, had later become one of the prominent men of the Valley, high sheriff and commander of the militia. Upon the outbreak of the Indian war twenty-five of the drafted men in Augusta County refused to march, preferring ‘to run the hazard of the fine.’ But Robert McClanahan’s son, Alexander, commanded one of the two ‘noble Companies’ from the countryside, which ventured out cheerfully with Lord Dunmore toward the Shawnee towns, only to miss the bad fighting.” [v.I – p.336-7; see ftnte. 64 & 65, p.417 for source information]

3. Much later (c.1780’s), another reference to a McClanahan: “In size and physical accommodations the town had not changed greatly from the frontier village where a few decades earlier Henry McClanahan’s relative had built his rude log hostelry opposite the new courthouse.” [v.II – p.239]

If you have family genealogical records this ‘discovery’ may either be no news to you or indicative of another McClanahan clan; however, if it’s a propitious “trail” to new, uncharted family history, then the best to you if you choose to pursue it.
Looking forward to your next book!

Cordially,
Stephen C. Lomax
Clayton, Delaware

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I think, in many respects we are going to agree that we disagree, respectfully of course.

With that said, you are absolutely right. I do have a lot to learn, and my learning so far is self taught. But, at my age (pushing 70 rather hard) learning is somewhat slow, but still continues.

Thank you for the links you posted up on FB. They are now saved and as you can imagine, I have mountains of info to digest. Who knows, maybe, at some point in time, we can agree even more.

Chris

I do agree with much of what you said, but also disagree with much. Having said that, at least for now I would like clarification on the following.

Your Quote:
“But here is the rub and where your position on the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision and your position on DOMA clash. DOMA IS necessary in a situation where the United States has devolved into the “United State,” a national government rather than a federal republic. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was never intended to apply to the States. The original preamble to the Bill of Rights, which you probably have never read, states unequivocally that the Bill of Rights are “restrictive clauses” to prevent the “misconstruction or abuse of its [the Constitution’s] powers” and are applicable to the federal government as in “Congress shall make no law.”

I understand your reasoning in your first two sentences and, for the most part agree. However, I disagree with the rest of the paragraph. Oh, and yes, I have and had read it, but I did deserve the remark….See my apology above.

The Preamble to the BOR is just that, a preamble and as such has no basis other than a guideline. And we both know, for decades, successive governments don’t even bother with guidelines except when it is to their case or agenda. Another abuse of a “Preamble” is Article 1 § 8 Clause 1.

Your interpretation of the BOR Preamble, as far as it goes, is correct. But if you are going to use that as a validation for the 2nd Amendment not being ALREADY incorporated to the states, the same criteria MUST be applied to all the other Amendments. I don’t see anyone saying that the 1st Amendment wasn’t already incorporated to the States, or any other Amendments, outside the 2nd.

The DOMA is unconstitutional. We agree on that for reasons already stated. So, if the DOMA is unconstitutional, using the same logic constitutionally, all firearm laws are unconstitutional as well. Since firearm legislation is NOT granted Congress under ANY of the Enumerated Powers,(Article 1 § 8, [including the Preamble Clause 1]) Congress has no authority to legislate firearms. They have only done so mostly via the abuse of the Commerce Clause. As an additional restriction, we also have the 2nd Amendment.

Also, since the 2nd Amendment, as you say, was never intended to be incorporated to the states, then once again, the same criteria, as far as all the amendments, must apply to the states. Therefore, the 10th Amendment, along with most of the others is null and void. We both know that is not the case.

So we are left with the Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Marriage, in any form, via the Constitution, it left to the States via the 10th Amendment.
Firearm laws are forbidden to both Federal and State(s). For the States, via the 2nd Amendment.

Whatever law is being considered, whether Federal or State, since the US Constitution is the Supreme Law if the Land, each law must satisfy EACH and EVERY ARTICLE, SECTION, CLAUSE of the US Constitution to be Constitutional.

Minor v. Happersett

Further still, Article VII has nothing to say about the powers that may be exercised by government. So even if the Constitution were established, Art. VII would remain superfluous. So why is it there? And what licit criteria were there during 1787-1789 for ratification and establishment?