George Washington - General

On Independence Day 2012 the National Geographic Channel presented a program called “The Real George Washington” for the expressed purpose, in the fashion of the day, to dispel the heroic myths surrounding Washington’s life and instead display how he was vain, power hungry, and a bad general.  The charge of power hungry can be dealt with in a couple of sentences: The crown of America was Washington’s for the taking following the Revolutionary War; all he would have had to do was declare himself King and his officers, men, and the public at large would have cheered at his coronation. King George III himself stated that if Washington resisted placing the crown of America on his head he would be “the greatest man of the age”. Washington went before Congress to tender his resignation and then he went home.  Coaxed out of retirement to participate in the Constitutional Convention, he then became our first President and could have been so for life had he chosen to run every four years, but instead he thought it prudent to set the precedent of only running twice.  Willingly giving up power for the sake of one's country, not just once but twice, are not the actions of a power hungry individual. Perhaps Washington was unusually hungry for fame and glory, but the charge of power hungry is ridiculous.

I’ll stipulate to his vanity - and thank the stars for it along with his hunger for glory – his concern for the preservation of his sacred honor and his place in history was his prime motivator in spending eight years of his life at war and in foregoing the throne.

This leaves the charge of poor generalship, or to quote the program, "mediocre tactician".  That statement on its face is somewhat true, at least early in the war, but the National Geographic Society seems content to leave us with that simplistic evaluation of Washington's military abilities, and the subject is far too complex for that.  Certainly the Continental Army won few battles under Washington’s command; and he was initially not an experienced commander having previously commanded troops only briefly in the French and Indian war.  His success in forcing the British evacuation of Boston early in the war was largely because of innovative subordinates and because the British really intended to leave anyway, and this nominal success was followed by bitter defeats in a series of battles in New York and a humiliating retreat across New Jersey into Pennsylvania followed by weeks of just trying to elude the British and keep the army intact.  It’s difficult to gauge Washington’s ability as a tactician from these events, he was at such a numerical and tactical disadvantage that perhaps the greatest of generals could have done little better, but it was in the months following New York, between that summer of Independence and Christmas of that year, 1776, that Washington began to evolve into a brilliant strategist, a fact that The National Geographic Society virtually ignores.

In order to understand the evolution of Washington’s generalship one must understand the difference between military tactics and military strategy.  Tactics is how to make use of terrain, manpower, equipment, the enemy's weaknesses, & etc to win a battle; strategy is figuring out how to win the war - tactics is how battles are won; strategy decides which battles to fight.  Washington made tactical mistakes during those battles in New York, but not horrendous ones and not more than many generals in many wars in many battles that were won; mostly he was simply outgunned.  His real mistake was in fighting those battles to begin with, not because New York was not strategically important, it was, but because the odds against winning were far too great, and the consequences of losing too devastating.  The fact that New York was virtually surrounded by navigatable water put Washington at too much of a disadvantage; he not only had to deal with General Howe’s army, but also the guns of Admiral Howe’s fleet; only extremely fortuitous weather conditions prevented the fleet from sailing up the Hudson River and destroying the Continental Army.  Historians disagree to what extent this strategic mistake can be blamed on Congress rather than Washington.  Professor Allen C. Guelzo at Gettysburg College states in his lecture series on the Revolution that Congress issued a direct order to Washington to defend New York; David McCullough in his book 1776 states just the opposite; while Ron Chernow in his biography titled Washington, A Life tells of correspondence between Washington and Congress on the subject, but without mention of a direct order.  What we know for sure is that Congress did exerted pressure on Washington to defend New York even if there was no direct order to do so; John Adams referred to it as “a kind of key to the whole continent” and stated that “no effort to secure it ought to be omitted”; and we also know that Washington was determined on his own to defend New York with or without an order from Congress, so perhaps the point is moot.  Fortunately he was not too vain to learn from this mistake, and the strategic plan that emerged was in fact a revelation - a singularly unique strategy suited to a unique war: he could win the war without winning battles, or rather by winning only a few strategic ones.

One can't say to what degree Washington's long term strategy for the winning of the war had evolved by the battles of Trenton and Princeton as 1776 became '77.  What he knew leading up to crossing the Delaware River on Christmas night to attack Trenton in the early morning was that he had to have a victory.  He didn't need to gain and hold ground; he didn't need to defeat a huge British force; but he had to put a battle in the win column or his horribly discouraged little army was going to dwindle away, and by now he understood that it wasn't New York or any other piece of ground that represented the hope of the infant United States; it was the Continental Army.  He came to understand that he didn't have to win a lot of battles; he just needed to keep his army intact; fight enough battles to be taken seriously, not give the British free rein, and occupy his troops (armies that never fight are as prone to desertion as armies that lose); win enough to keep morale in the army high enough to minimize desertions and promote enlistments as well as discourage enlistments in loyalist militia units; and outlast the British.

This strategy was contrary to Washington's military personality which tended toward the aggressive.  He wanted to command a well oiled military machine; he wanted to outsmart and outmaneuver his enemy, but while his army’s discipline and abilities had improved over time from the militia that he started with, and while many of the soldiers were veterans of the French and Indian War, it was still primarily a citizen army, and while he displayed moments of tactical brilliance he would never be a great tactician.  Still, fighting a defensive war was not to his liking, and he continued to hope for that one great victory that would turn the tide and end the war quickly.  He hoped for it at the Brandywine river where his army was nearly equal in number to the British force he opposed and his troops had the advantage of being well entrenched as the enemy approached, but he was outmaneuvered and outflanked because he gave undue credence to intelligence that fit what he already believed and discounted intelligence to the contrary.  So he was forced to retreat and allow the enemy to march into his country's capital rather than risk the extermination of his army; he could lose Philadelphia and still hope to win the war if his army was intact.  This was not the same general that had stubbornly fought one losing battle after another in New York; he had learned from his strategic mistakes, and following Brandywine Washington avoided battle except on rare occasions when he had a numerically superior force or other tactical advantage. Had he been ordered by Congress at this stage Washington would probably have resigned rather than lead his army into another unwinnable battle.  His caution was not due to concern for his personal safety; his courage under fire is documented multiple times by multiple people in multiple battles in two wars. His concern was always for the preservation of the Continental Army, the thread upon which the hopes of the United States of America dangled.

Washington was not directly involved in the decisive battles at Saratoga, New York that took place nearly simultaneously with Brandywine and where a huge American victory was enough to convince the French to ally themselves with the fledgling nation.  He was, however, instrumental in that battle from afar by keeping the main British army occupied so that it did not reinforce the British army in the north, and because prior to the battle of Brandywine he sent three of his best officers, General Benedict Arnold, General Benjamin Lincoln, and Colonel Daniel Morgan with his regiment of sharp shooters to assist the efforts to repel the British invasion from Canada.  General Lincoln was instrumental in destroying the British supply lines before the actual battles at Saratoga, and the other two officers and their men played huge roles in those battles.  Despite his later treachery, Benedict Arnold was one of the bravest and most energetic of Continental officers, and is considered to be the true hero of Saratoga. What a testimony to Washington as Commander in Chief that he sent such valuable assets to assist an effort hundreds of miles away when he knew that he would soon be in a major battle himself.  It’s interesting to speculate; had Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan been guarding Washington’s right flank at Brandywine rather than Horatio Gates’ left flank at Saratoga, if the outcomes of those two battles might have been reversed.

Washington was not on the battlefields in the Carolinas when the British chose to move the war south, but for almost five years he worked his strategy, fighting few battles, winning fewer, and keeping his army together until the great opportunity at Yorktown, Virginia which some say he stumbled onto by accident and was really a victory belonging to the French fleet who, by taking control of Chesapeake Bay, left the British army without a means of resupply or evacuation. These points might have some merit, but the fact remains that without Washington's patient, strategic conduct of the war during those years of frustration for him and depravation for his army there very likely would have been no Continental Army to stumble onto the opportunity at Yorktown, and no United States of America for the French to ally themselves with.  The fact remains that Washington commanded an ill equipped, ill fed army that ultimately defeated the most powerful military force in the world.

If tactics and strategy are two legs of a military tripod then the third is logistics.  How is an army organized for best effect?  How is it fed, clothed and equipped?  How is it moved from place to place?  How is the morale and well-being of the army maximized to the degree possible? 

In these logistical areas Washington also deserves high marks.  Perhaps he had a tendency to micro-manage, but a few examples show that it was to good effect. He organized the army into brigades consisting of three or more regiments rather than the traditional British system of each regiment being an independent unit.  While the British threw regiments together into brigades under temporary commanders on an ad hoc basis, permanent American brigades commanded by permanent brigadier generals minimized confusion on the battlefield.  Identifying regiments by State and lumping soldiers together with neighbors and relatives applied peer pressure that bolstered courage under fire; soldiers did not want to appear cowardly in front of friends or folks that could tell of it back home.  Insisting that the soldiers in the Continental Army be vaccinated against smallpox at a time that vaccination was very controversial probably avoided an epidemic that would have decimated the ranks.

Washington was at a huge disadvantage when it came to transport of his army; the British could generally hop on ships and be taken anyplace along the seaboard and often inland via navigable rivers, but America had virtually no navy so Washington’s army had to move overland.  His ability to move his army quickly under difficult conditions whether in retreat or to take advantage of opportunity was remarkable.

Every school child knows about the winter of deprivation at Valley Forge, but it was only one of many, and perhaps not the worst of them.  Washington’s greatest challenge was not on the battlefield; it was in keeping his army supplied with little or no help from the Continental Congress that lacked the authority to tax and was therefore constantly short of money to conduct the war. Washington resisted the temptation of simply taking provisions from farmers and other citizens without something in the way of compensation – often from his own pocket.  The British and their German hirelings were not so restrained.  Thus Washington skillfully, wisely, and successfully balanced the tremendously important strategic goal of keeping or swaying public opinion in favor of the American cause against the logistical problem of supplying his army.

Of course Washington was aided in all of these areas by talented subordinates, but this only demonstrates another of his logistical strengths – his ability to recognize talent among very unlikely sources of officers.   At a time when birth into an aristocratic family and the ability to purchase prestigious military commissions was the normal means of selecting an officer corps in the British military, Washington was able to find talented officers among book sellers, Quaker farmers, ministers, and college dropouts.

One interesting way to evaluate Washington as a general is to look at a couple of generals in somewhat comparable situations since his time.  The obvious comparison is Robert E. Lee who was a brilliant tactician in a losing cause.  This evaluation is far too simplistic and not quite fair – Lee was not in charge of all of the southern armies and did not have strategic control of his war; Jefferson Davis who considered himself a military genius held overall command and controlled the “big picture” strategically.  Neither did Lee’s adversary have a communication line that included an ocean crossing. What’s worth noting is that Lee’s two major defeats prior to Appomattox were Antietam and Gettysburg – the two attempts at aggressively invading northern territory.  These decisions to invade the north, whoever made them, might have had worthy political rational, but they were strategic disasters.  In the end Lee’s amazing tactical brilliance in many battles (not including Gettysburg) could not overcome the poor strategy under which the war was conducted.

A less obvious general to compare to Washington is Ho Chi Minh who was a great admirer of Washington and studied his military strategy.  The parallels are remarkable: a small citizen army on home turf fighting the most powerful military in the world based an ocean away where popular support for the war is never complete and wanes over time.  It’s interesting that Ho’s one major deviation from a Washington like strategy was his coordinated attacks on several major cities in South Vietnam in 1968 known at the Tet Offensive, a military blunder equivalent to Gettysburg, but successful in that it tipped the scales of public opinion in the United States away from supporting the war. Can Ho Chi Minh be credited with so much wisdom that he knew that even in defeat a major attack would help him win the war?  It’s difficult to say; but we can say that, like Washington, he understood that as long as he wasn't annihilated, he had a good chance of holding out to win the war when his enemy, though undefeated, gave up and went home.

It's good that historians continue to dig for historical truth in regard to the American Revolution and our Founding Fathers, and it's true that Washington was the subject of much myth and legend during his life and long after - myths that should be dispelled and legends that should be challenged; but I question the motives and honesty of those whose research seems predisposed to discover or prove the negative or purposely ignore evidence of the positive in regard to Washington and other American icons. 

As a student and lover of American history I hesitate when asked, “Who was the greatest President of the United States”, the answer is not obvious and while Washington would certainly be on the short list, mistakes made and some of the precedents set during his Presidency have had negative effects ever since.  But if asked, “Who was the greatest man who ever became President of the United States”, then there is no hesitation; that man was George Washington.  There were many amazing men in the Revolutionary crowd, but of only one can it be said, “If that man had not existed at that time, there would be no United States of America.”  That man was General George Washington.

Growers and Gatherers

In southern Idaho is a long, wide, open valley called Camas Prairie, named for a flowering plant that once grew there in abundance.  It’s sparsely populated by mostly farmers and ranchers raising mostly potatoes, wheat, barley, seed corn, alfalfa, and cattle.  But of course this was not always the case.  For perhaps millennia until less than 200 years ago this valley was inhabited by almost no one, but was visited annually by thousands of Shoshone and Bannock people, among others.  These hunter gatherer tribes were drawn to the valley to gather the edible roots of the camas plant, a staple of their diets. 

If one reads John Locke and other philosophers that deal with the topic of land ownership the agreed upon theme is that initial ownership of previous wilderness land is constituted by putting the land to use, by tilling it, improving it, and living upon it.  Locke went as far as to say that land has little or no value until improved by labor and that by pouring ones labor into the land, entwining the effort and the land together so that they are inseparable is what constitutes ownership, because one is certainly entitled to own the result of his labor and if that result is integral to the land, then he must also own the land that had virtually no value prior to his efforts to improve it.

So when white settlers came to Camas Prairie the Native Americans lost the right to harvest there because they had no claim to the land.  By no ancient definition did the Shoshone and the Bannock own Camas Prairie, and they did not want to “own” it; they simply wanted to continue visiting it and gathering camas roots every year as their ancestors had done for centuries.  They did not sow; they only harvested, but surely the centuries of occasional use count for something even if it does not constitute ownership.  

History tells us that even if they had lived on that land their claim would not have been respected, but that is not the question of the moment.  The question here is what claim they had or continue to have.  Did the visiting of Camas Prairie by their ancestors each year for millennia to gather food give nineteenth century Shoshone and Bannock a right to continue doing so? Do their descendents still have such rights?  If so does that right extend to the extreme of disallowing crops and cattle that feed millions rather than leaving nature to feed thousands?  The story of Camas Prairie in Idaho is not unique; much of the United States, indeed of the New World, would be left to nature if such claims were acknowledged and honored.  Millions would starve, but such pragmatism does not eliminate the claim, at least not the claim of those that went hungry when the valley was first occupied by the agrarians.  It is not justifiable to force a people to go hungry so that a larger group of people might be fed. 

So the Bannock and Shoshone had, and perhaps continue to have, rights to gather food in Camas Prairie, but if we are concerned with the greater good served by the feeding of vastly more people, then it cannot be concluded that the valley should never have been converted to agriculture.  We cannot lay Camas Prairie and other places of ancient food gathering aside perpetually for the decedents of those that visited them annually to gather food before an agrarian society came along.  Every bit of land on the globe save the poles has provided nourishment for a race of food gatherers at one time or another.  Abolishing agriculture in such places and setting them aside would eliminate all of the crops on earth.  So it’s not right that the gatherers were forbidden to gather food in Camas Prairie, and it wouldn’t have been right to forbid the farmers to settle and make use of land that was so little utilized.

Perhaps this discussion seems moot; there are not many hunter-gatherer societies left on earth and we probably don’t need additional moral guidelines for dealing with them, but when we can point to specific individuals that suffered and name them by name, when we can talk to their grandchildren; the history of Camas Prairie and hundreds of similar locations is not so far in the past that the moral dilemma should be ignored.  The debate is alive because the debate over Native American rights continues, and because the moral history of America is worthy of discussion.  It is a worthwhile exercise to find an answer to this moral dilemma.

But moral dilemmas don’t actually exist; every moral question has a moral answer if we break the situation into the fundamentals rights of those involved.  In this case the rights of both parties can be served if the food gatherers are granted the right to annually glean from the fields of the food growers, perhaps not perpetually, but at least for a few generations.  Perhaps this answer was employed long before Europeans set foot in the lands of the Shoshone and the Bannock.

In Deuteronomy we read of the ancient practice of allowing the poor to glean the fields of the landowners.  Perhaps this practice did not start as an act of charity at all but rather as a means of dealing fairly with those that lived off the land before it was tilled, before the agrarians came along.  Can we imagine an agricultural society with superior weapons and larger population that moves into a sparsely populated, fertile valley and endeavors to deal fairly with those that have wandered through it hunting and gathering for generations?  Can we imagine the leader of the agrarians saying to the leader of the wandering gatherers, “We will take possession of this valley and grow crops, and if your people choose they may live with us on the land and help work the fields for daily bread, or if they prefer to continue wandering they may glean from the edges of our fields when passing through our valley as they have always gleaned from this land.  And when we meet it will be in peace.” 

Perhaps the scene described never took place in all the history of human relations, or perhaps it was common practice at some time in some part of the world and led to the custom chronicled in Deuteronomy.  In any case we can imagine it and know that the Native Americans that gathered roots in Camas Prairie could have been treated fairly and still allow for white settlement.  As the camas became scarce they could have gleaned corn, wheat, barley, potatoes, and maybe even an occasional steer.  There is the answer to our dilemma, but one that was all too seldom, if ever, applied.  Instead there were inefficient, corrupt, too little too late, ineffective government programs.

The “General Welfare” Clause

There are those that insist that what is sometimes called the “General Welfare Clause” in the United States Constitution justifies and even mandates that America be a cradle to grave welfare state, that it lends Constitutional sanction to our government taking from some in order to give to others.  But no honest student of American history could possibly hold this erroneous notion.

To clear up a misconception held by some, the General Welfare Clause is found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, not in the Preamble which also mentions the general welfare, and reads, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.  This statement is the justification for a new defining document to replace the anemic Articles of Confederation and lists the purpose and goals of the Constitution; it is not part of the Constitution proper and has no legal standing.  Nevertheless, the analysis of the term “general welfare” below applies to its use in the Preamble as well as in the General Welfare Clause.

Article I of the Constitution defines the legislative branch of our central government.  The first seven sections of Article I lay out the structure of the legislature, the qualification requirements for Senators and Congressmen, the apportionment of representation of the States, and other defining statements.  Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers and responsibilities of Congress and begins with the “Taxing and Spending Clause” which includes the “General Welfare” clause: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”  This statement fulfills the primary purpose of the Constitutional Convention which was convened to correct the inadequacies in the Articles of Confederation, the most blatant being the lack of congressional authority to tax. 

But what does that part about the general welfare mean?  Obviously it’s mentioned along with providing for the common defense as justification for giving the central government the power to tax, but again – what does it mean?  The key is in the word “general” which means, according to Webster’s primary definition: “Of, for, or from the whole or all; neither particular nor local.”  From the time of the Mayflower Compact that bound the Pilgrims into “a civil body politic” with authority “to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony;”, the word “general” was used in colonial charters and State constitutions to mean ALL citizens.  Also worth noting is the definition of “welfare”: “The state of being or doing well; condition of health, happiness and comfort; well-being; prosperity.”

 In other words, in addition to providing for the common defense, the central government, with appropriation authority held by Congress and administration in the realm of the President, can spend tax money on things that promote the well-being of all of American society, but this clause specifically DOES NOT authorize Congress to appropriate or the President to spend money to benefit any subset of society; such appropriations would be beneficial to the welfare of some, but not to the general welfare. General Welfare cannot mean to harm some in order to benefit others or to take from some in order to give to others.

Obviously many of the ways that Congress chooses to spend taxpayer money do not provide for the common defense or promote the general welfare, but rather promote the welfare of some at the expense of others, but looking for a legitimate example of government promotion of the general welfare, few will argue against government support of public education.  An uneducated citizenry unable to compete in a complex world and unable to understand the fundamental benefits and responsibilities of citizenship is detrimental to the nation as a whole - to every citizen, and to the degree that public education eliminates such ignorance it indeed promotes the general welfare as intended by the Framers of the Constitution.  We may debate about whether or not our current education system accomplishes this goal, but the desirability of the goal, and the fact that it indeed promotes the general welfare of the United States should be universally accepted.  On the other hand appropriations for studying the effect of marijuana consumption on the mating habits of chimpanzees benefit only those being paid to do the research (and, of course, the chimpanzees).  Those favoring such appropriations must look elsewhere in the Constitution for justification.  These examples are used merely to illustrate the meaning of “general welfare”, chosen because few, other than chimpanzees, will argue with them.  Others may debate additional examples of government expenditure and whether or not they legitimately promote the General Welfare.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both weighed in on the General Welfare Clause and warned about its use to justify bigger government.  Madison wrote, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions”. Jefferson said much the same thing using less than half the words, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” These statements stress that the General Welfare Clause does not give congress additional powers over those specifically listed (enumerated) in the Constitution, it is simply mentioned as justification for giving the central government in general, and congress specifically, the authority to tax.

It was understood by our Founders and Framers that in its most fundamental definition the only purpose of government is to promote the general welfare of its citizens – this is the foundation of the Social Compact, the agreement of all citizens to give to a governing body reasonable power and means to protect the lives and property of those that choose to live under its jurisdiction. A wonderful, literal example is the Mayflower Compact mentioned above.  All legitimate functions of government promote the general welfare: defending citizens from outside aggression, passing just and equitable laws, and punishing those that break those laws all promote the general welfare.  If government does not protect the lives and property of its citizens, then there is no reason, purpose, or justification for government, and to be legitimate the social compact must apply equally to all; justification of government is eroded any time one segment of society is benefited at the expense of another. 

Comments on the U.N. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"

The following is the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.  It expresses many worthy ideals and begins in prose analogous to the Declaration of Independence, but especially in the final pages it slips into extremely socialistic language.  This document is being touted around the internet by some as an ideal.  I've decided to refute those passages that I find offensive.  I will highlight the offending or questionable words or phrases in red, and my comments will be in blue and I’ll include links to pertinent articles from my blog:

PREAMBLE       

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Taken literally this passage is not offensive, freedom from fear and want is certainly a worthy aspiration, but in the overall context of this preamble that talks of “fundamental human rights” and “fundamental freedoms” and taking the entire document into account, this passage seems to raise the desirable goal of “freedom from want” to the level of an inalienable right, and that is a dangerous concept…  http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2011/11/natural-rights-social-rights-and-social.html

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

OK, maybe I’m just paranoid about the word “progressive”, and also about the notion of using “teaching and education” to promote this document.  I have no problem with teaching the value of human life, diversity, and respect for all, but if I disagree with some of this documents “rights and freedoms” then I don’t want them taught to my children and grandchildren, and while I’m teaching my children and grandchildren about inalienable rights and freedoms, I’ll keep the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution “constantly in mind” rather than anything published by the United Nations. http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/progressivism.html

Article 1.

• All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

• Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

• Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

• No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.   (Does this include punitive taxation?)

Article 5.

• No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

• Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

What constitution is being referenced here?

Article 9.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Who determines what’s “fair”? What constitutes the “independent and impartial tribunal”?  Is the UN planning to monitor American courtrooms?

Article 11.

• (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.
• (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

• (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

I think I agree with the spirit of this passage, but how can it be said that anyone from any country has the “right” to asylum in another country?  Such implied subordination of sovereign nations to the UN is very troublesome and is found throughout this document. 

Article 15.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

• (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
• (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
• (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

• (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
• (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

• Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
• (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

• (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
• (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
• (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Again I agree with the spirit of this statement, but in the United States our Constitution is the basis of the authority of government.  While it’s true that “the people” have it in their power to amend the Constitution, it is by design a difficult process not subject to the whim of a momentary majority.

Article 22.

• Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

What does this mean? Does it mean that each member of society has the right to work toward his or her full potential? If so how does the “organization and resources of each State” come into play?  The very vagueness of this statement and others in the document is disturbing, as if designed to sneak in meaning that might not be caught by the casual reader.

Article 23.

• (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
• (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
• (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
• (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

(1) What does “protection against unemployment” mean?  While everyone has the right to work pursuant to agreeable terms with an employer, no one has the right to force an employer to hire them, nor does the state have a legitimate right to force someone to hire against his will.  Does this mean that everyone who is unemployed has the right to some kind of government provided sustenance?  Such a notion is raw socialism. http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2010/10/communism-socialism-democracy-and.html

(2) Equal pay for equal work is certainly fair and desirable, but as I’ve stated elsewhere, state enforcement of such policy is impossible, and attempting it would be disastrous to liberty.

(3) There are many jobs that do not and cannot pay a wage large enough to assure a family “an existence worthy of human dignity”.  Such jobs are usually held by young people in high school or college or by someone who is not the primary bread winner in a family.  Forcing employers to comply with this statement would be economically disastrous for all concerned. Supplementing “by other means of social protection” is pure socialism and would result in even greater disaster.

(4) No argument, but I’d add that everyone also has the right to not join a trade union and every employer has the right to hire non-union personnel.

Article 24.

• Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Again a reasonable and desirable thing that is NOT a “right” – classifying such things as rights distorts the meaning of the word and that’s a dangerous thing to do.  Such things are negotiable between employer and employee, or group of employees organized into a union.

Article 25.

• (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
• (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

OK, this is as good a place as any to make the point that no one can have a “right” to something that must be paid for by someone else.  This statement says that I have the RIGHT to be completely taken care of by society.  I don’t know why this statement mentions unemployment – who in the world is going to work if they have the right to all of this stuff just for existing?

Article 26.

• (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
• (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
• (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

(1) Here’s that word again. I’m all in favor of free education through high school, but it’s not a “right”. In my article “Natural Rights, Social Rights, and Social Privileges” (link above) I refer to free education as a “social privilege”, a gift given by society and morally valid because virtually all of society benefits.  One cannot have a “right” to something that has to be paid for by someone else.

(2) This statement is mostly OK unless one accepts this document’s definition of “human rights” and “fundamental freedoms”, but the notion that education should promote the United Nations is repugnant.

(3) I like this and believe that it contradicts (2) along with one or two other statements in the document.

Article 27.

• (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
• (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

• Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

As already discussed, many of the “rights and freedoms” set forth in this declaration are not legitimate rights and freedoms so the entitlement of a social order guaranteeing them is equally illegitimate.

Article 29.

• (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
• (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
• (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

(2) “General welfare” is always a phrase to be viewed with suspicion; and yes, I know it is used in the Constitution, but the meaning at that time was not what is often implied today see link below).  In any case the problem here is that this statement seems to be saying that we have the right to exercise our rights as long as exercising them is beneficial to others.  In other words they are not rights at all.

http://thoughtofasecularconservative.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-general-welfare-clause.html

(3) Now I may not exercise my rights if they are contrary to an Ad Hoc assembly of ambassadors whose authority I do not recognize.  This means I do not have the right, in spite of the First Amendment, to advocate that the United States should leave the UN and stop funding it, because that would certainly be “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” 

Article 30.

• Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This is vague enough that I’m not sure but I think I've already violated it…

In fact many of the articles in this document are vague, seemingly by design.  Sometimes that happens when those creating such a document cannot agree on more precise language; such was the case in some passages in the United States Constitution.  Other times vague language is purposely used to confuse the reader and slip in language that many would otherwise object to.  I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if such language appears within this document.